pull down to refresh

I know I'm way out of my league posting here, and I risk throwing away 500 sats, but I'm curious as to whether this is practical.
I am a big believer in Robosats, but it lacks the size and liquidity it needs to compete with custodial, KYC exchanges.
I think a big reason for that is the lack of a reputation system for buyers and sellers. This seems to be a requirement for any online site engaging in transactions.
Robosats' privacy is core to its value. I wouldn't want to change the system where robots are used once and discarded. But, as it stands no significant market maker can enter the platform and grow a business due to the lack of a reputation system.
I wonder if ZKPs could solve this issue?
Please excuse all the shitcoiny blockchain stuff.
I am completely technically ignorant. But when I think of a solution for this, it would be interesting if there was a reputation linked to a private key signature and the trading bots were the public keys generated by this private key, which would share the same reputation.
I may be tripping or inventing something improbable, I really don't know the technical impacts of this.
reply
36 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 19 Apr
You don't even need ZKP. A simple anonymous reputation system that's designed well and checks for verified trades/disputes would be better than nothing.
Most p2p systems end up having something.
reply
How would that work with disposable one time identities for both parties to a transaction?
reply
36 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 19 Apr
I didn't realize identities were disposable on robosats. Now I realize why you suggested ZKP.
reply
Without liquidity it is very dangerous...be careful. It is worth a try with a small amount, but I am always careful in such situations
reply