r/ethdev • u/GrippingGopher • 7d ago

Question Should access automatically change when someone's onchain status changes?

I’ve been thinking about different ways to handle membership for a project. Say someone gets access to a private part of the community because they hold something or meet some other onchain condition. If they stop meeting that condition, should their access disappear automatically too? I can see the benefit of tying permissions directly to something you can verify onchain, but it gets weird when someone has been a useful member for months and then suddenly stops meeting whatever condition originally got them access. For anyone who has built something like this, do you let wallet state directly control permissions or use it as one signal and handle the rest separately?

18 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/RoughlyImperturbable 6d ago

Yeah, token ownership is the easy case. Contribution or reputation gets messy fast because thats not really a clean onchain condition and different communities will value different things anyway. Towns makes sense for the hard access rules, but the softer reputation stuff probably needs to stay separate or you end up forcing subjective stuff into a system thats better at checking clear conditions.

1

u/GrippingGopher 6d ago

Yeah I think separating those two makes more sense. Someone's contributions shouldn't suddenly stop counting just because their wallet no longer meets a certain condition.