Blastscore
Blastscore is designed for reputation-based selection, Blast participation attestations, quest engagement, and wallet activity review
Blastscore is designed to help projects choose participants when wallet engagement quality matters to their selection rules. Its S.C.O.R.E. model evaluates ecosystem activity, while partners define the benefits and eligibility conditions. This approach fits reputation-based roles, governance participation, and activity attestations. Completing BH Quests earns bXP, a separate engagement measure; personal activity review lets users compare their wallet participation. Live scoring, quests, and attestations are not confirmed as currently available, so practical use remains conditional on access to the relevant feature.
Does the participation decision need a reputation profile?
A reputation profile is relevant when selection concerns meaningful involvement across the ecosystem, because a transaction count captures quantity without explaining the quality of engagement. The model considers transactions, involvement with decentralized applications, voting, and other interactions. A rating fits a question about a wallet's broader activity better than a question about one recorded action.
The scoring approach prioritizes the quality and diversity of engagement on Blast. A large value for one parameter does not determine the final rating, because the model balances inputs through nonlinear relationships. A reputation-based decision therefore concerns the combined pattern of activity.
S.C.O.R.E., quest points, and attestations also answer different questions. The rating interprets wallet activity, bXP represents quest engagement, and Proof-of-Yield applies participation criteria to an attestation.
Partner selection connects a rating to a specific benefit
The partner-selection model fits a project that wants to recognise engagement quality through a role or reward with its own participation conditions. Reputation provides an input to that selection. The partner determines how the input relates to the benefit it offers, so eligibility remains specific to that project.
The described benefits include roles such as WL and OG, governance voting rights, and rewards from partners. These are separate outcomes, even when reputation contributes to each decision. A role concerns participation within a project; a voting right concerns its governance; a reward concerns its distribution criteria.
Partner projects can set their own conditions for selecting rewarded users. A reputation-based shortlist therefore needs the conditions of the relevant offer. A wallet score alone does not show that the project has assigned a role or allocated a reward.
Voting activity forms part of the engagement that scoring can assess, while a partner may attach voting rights to qualifying reputation. Previous participation supplies context for the project's decision; the right that a project grants is the benefit under consideration.
Proof-of-Yield fits recognition of Blast participation
Proof-of-Yield is relevant when the desired outcome is an attestation of Blast L2 participation under a reputation and deposit-based eligibility model. Successful certification can provide access to quests and reward opportunities that accept the attestation.
The framework names Proof-of-Humanity, Blasted, Blasted Guru, and Unblastable as attestation stages. The entry stage combines a score condition with a minimum deposit, while the higher named stages specify different deposit thresholds.
The published attestation design lists a 0.1 ETH minimum deposit for Proof-of-Humanity. Blasted lists at least 1 ETH, Blasted Guru at least 5 ETH, and Unblastable at least 10 ETH. These amounts refer to deposits into Blast L2, not a service price or reward amount. Current requirements for live attestation remain unconfirmed.
A deposit alone does not establish attestation eligibility; the qualifying score also applies. The published rule says attestation is unavailable unless S.C.O.R.E. exceeds 50, while the Proof-of-Humanity tier lists 50 points. Eligibility at exactly 50 remains unclear.
Blast Hub combines campaign tasks with bXP quest points
Blast Hub's quest panel is designed to let projects customize on-chain and Web2 tasks with automated verification. Completing BH Quests earns bXP in the Blast Hub model. The points provide an additional engagement measure for social ranking.
Blast Hub's design also uses S.C.O.R.E. and on-chain activity for access restrictions in campaigns that require experienced crypto users. Those restrictions are intended to limit bot access. A point balance should not be read as a universal qualification for every partner benefit.
Activity review serves a personal assessment
A personal activity review fits the protocol's use when the goal is to understand wallet participation without seeking a partner-controlled benefit. The design includes checking one's own activity and comparing it with other users. Such a comparison can inform participation choices across DeFi, NFTs, DAOs, and social activity. A higher rating remains an algorithmic assessment of activity, so it does not itself establish a newly awarded role or reward.
Wallet context must match the ecosystem being recognised
Multi-chain assessment matters when a participation decision needs context beyond activity on Blast, while keeping the relevant project's engagement requirements in view. The protocol describes assessing activity across multiple blockchains to reflect a user's involvement more broadly.
Activity on another chain does not automatically satisfy a partner's conditions for Blast engagement.
The protocol's design also considers a wallet's total value locked (TVL), yield on Blast, and involvement in the Blast ecosystem. A project focusing on Blast participation may care about the engagement that those measures describe.
A precise activity rule can be the more suitable choice
A rule tied to a specific on-chain interaction may fit better when selection concerns that interaction alone, without evaluating the wallet's wider history. An additional reputation threshold changes a direct participation rule into a broader eligibility test.
A transaction-volume campaign rewards quantity; the scoring model prioritizes engagement quality and diversity. Those measures express different selection criteria, so a reputation score should not automatically replace a volume-based rule.
Practical use depends on feature and campaign availability
Live access to scoring, BH Quests, and Proof-of-Yield attestation remains unconfirmed. A reputation-linked offer also needs a participating project that recognises the qualifying activity and is currently granting the relevant benefit.
Personal activity review needs an accessible reputation service. Roles or rewards additionally need an active offer and the participating project's eligibility conditions. Where reputation-based access remains unconfirmed, an available rule tied to the required activity may provide a clearer basis for an immediate participation decision.
Helpful answers about Blastscore
Does a S.C.O.R.E. value determine governance voting weight?
A S.C.O.R.E. value describes wallet reputation and does not establish a universal governance voting weight. The model includes governance voting rights among possible project benefits, with conditions controlled by the participating project. Reputation can inform eligibility for those rights. Any voting power that accompanies them belongs to the governance rules that the project applies.
Will buying additional NFTs secure a reputation-based project role?
Buying additional NFTs does not guarantee a higher final rating or a project role. The algorithm uses nonlinear relationships between its parameters, so increasing one input does not determine the final S.C.O.R.E. Eligibility for a reputation-based role rests on the final rating and any additional conditions that the project applies.
How does transaction timing matter to a reputation-based shortlist?
Transaction timing is one activity characteristic that the scoring approach considers when assessing engagement. The design also considers whether activity resembles bot-farm patterns. That makes it relevant when a shortlist aims to recognise meaningful participation and reduce rewards for repetitive farming. Timing contributes context within the broader activity assessment; it does not independently establish eligibility for a particular partner offer.
Can a project adapt the scoring model to a particular participation goal?
The scoring design allows parameters to be adapted to a Web3 product's requirements. A product-specific formula determines how activity is rated. The project also needs selection conditions that connect the tailored rating to the benefit it offers.
Is bXP a guaranteed airdrop allocation?
A bXP balance does not establish a guaranteed airdrop allocation. The points were intended to form one of the selection criteria for an airdrop, in addition to their role as an engagement metric. That intention supplies no fixed conversion from points to tokens. Current distribution terms and availability remain unconfirmed, so the balance does not establish a payable amount.
Last updated: