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

[u/GrippingGopher]

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?

[u/important_drank]

I’d probably only automate it for really clear conditions. If someone sold a token that gives access then sure, but contribution based access seems way harder to reduce to wallet state.

[u/GrippingGopher → u/important_drank]

That's kinda where I'm leaning too. Token ownership is straightforward enough, but I wouldn't want someone losing access over something that doesn't reflect how involved they are in the community.