Combining Multiple Addresses To Create single Yup Influence

There is this idea of “combining” multiple eth addresses from a single user to reflect stronger influence. This does not mean users can vote from those different addresses, but all the activities of users across the wallets can make better influence score.


I think the best approach is something similar to ENS, where you would be able to set a primary ETH, and the rest of eth are secondaries.

Then your influence will only be taken from the primary address, and the rest are just shown…

Combining multiple ETH has a list of problems, like:
1 it evades stable identity
2 it requires delinking eth on which consensus has been reached do remove that feature
3 it adds potentially security attack vectors when auth is mainly based on eth
4 it requires a hard limit on how many addresses you could link
5 it ads more vectors for gaining influence

Most identity/reputation services only use one address, and the thinking is that you have one that’s public and you want to show, and the rest are private, and since are private why would you want to show them?

Also, a good question is if you have more than one public address why is that? It is by mistake? Do you classify cold wallets as “public” wallets (though they don’t have activity)…
There’s no good explanation for having like 4-5 public eth addresses.

Even for 2 is hard to find a good explanation.


In my case, I have two addresses on my metamask. One is a public address for receiving, sending, and trading purposes and the second one is for NFTs and holding. In short, my Web3 footprint is on two addresses and I would like to consider it in my influence score.

Like @nir said in the meeting that people can have more than one address for more than one purpose and all those addresses combined to create one person’s web3 footprint. Some users may want to combine their wallets to create a stronger and more diverse influence score!

The proper mechanism of combined influence can be discussed further as we build on this idea.

This shall be completely volunteerly.

If the user is willing to add multiple wallet addresses in one Yup profile shows his/her legitimacy and reduces the chances of abusing the system with multiple accounts. In the absence of KYC, knowing a person by his/her wallets is the way to Web3-KYC.

We can put a limit of 3/4/5 wallet addresses per user.

Most of the issues I listed are solvable.

Like possible solutions:

1 You renounce the single identity vision which I think is the main case against such change because like in real life we don’t have 6 driver’s licenses just because we want to have 6 pictures with different hair colors.

2 you only allow delinking as long as you have more than 1 address

3 make auth system support more eth addresses

4 probably add a limit to max 4-5 addresses

5 add a penalty of 80% to secondary addresses

There’s also a perception difference because I am sure that other persons like me exist that will not consider your cold wallet meant for holding as part of a footprint.

I would also strongly disagree that adding addresses to an account is anything akin to KYC, you can generate many thousands of PKs for EVM addresses in mere seconds.

Someone could argue that “Web3-KYC” is just KYC that uses external providers and stores the proofs in a decentralized manner similar to


I see it as multiple bank accounts as opposed to multiple driving licenses. Since metamask allows one single user to create multiple addresses, it can be accounted as one singular identity. You can have multiple bank accounts and still your loan from one account will affect your borrowing limit from the other bank account. Pseudo-anonymity in blockchain is a headache in some cases, lol.

Let’s assume a user with one single wallet address on metamask with the age of 5 years. This address will have a very robust influence score, right? Now, user decided to do his NFT business on the other address and since that is also his web3 footprint, and more importantly it is still the same person, both the addresses can be considered for the combined influence. But I completely agree with the point of penalty for secondary addresses. If won’t be fair for the users with a single linked address. So, users combining more than one address will receive diminishing rewards.

Holding NFTs can be a web3 footprint in some cases, but I get your point.

We can do something like Gitcoin Passport too.

With all due respect, I think this is not a real priority for the project, there are more priorities like token burning, token usage, because I think there should be an order, and focus more on that.

because the multiple wallets will help the burning or use of the token ?

you have very good ideas harsh , but first you have to give priority to those you have given , over utility and burning.