Team public accountability surface
A dev identity & insider risk factor in the v1.7.0 rubric. Measured per protocol on a s cadence.
Methodology how we score#
What this measures
This factor counts the number of verifiable public accountability trails per core team member: LinkedIn profiles with substantive employment history, conference talk attributions with recorded video, prior employer references where the employment is independently verifiable, and GitHub profiles with multi-year contribution histories predating the current protocol. The output is a per-member count and a team aggregate score. Category 7 context: accountability surface depth is a proxy for the cost of exit — the more traceable the team, the higher the real-world consequence of executing a rug or insider drain.
Why it matters
A single social media handle is trivially discardable; a LinkedIn profile with ten years of employment history connected to a verifiable employer, combined with conference talks and peer references, is operationally difficult to abandon. Protocols where multiple team members have deep accountability surfaces have a materially lower observed exit-scam rate in the database. The signal is particularly relevant for protocols in early launch phase where no on-chain history exists yet to substitute for identity credibility.
Green / Yellow / Red
Green is scored when the majority of core team members each have three or more independent verifiable accountability surface entries — LinkedIn with history, GitHub with multi-year activity, plus one additional source such as a conference talk or prior employer reference. Yellow applies when team members have one to two verifiable entries, or when accountability surface is concentrated in a single platform that could be fabricated. Red is scored when team members have zero independently verifiable accountability entries beyond a social handle or a newly created LinkedIn with no substantive history.
Common gray cases
Gray is assigned when the protocol team is fully pseudonymous and accountability surface assessment relies entirely on unverifiable self-assertions, or when the team has not disclosed sufficient identifying information to begin the OSINT process within the evidence budget.
Notable historical examples
No cross-hacked incidents currently linked in database for this factor.
Measurement what to look for#
Count the number of verifiable public trails per team member (LinkedIn with employment history, conference talks, prior employer records, GitHub with aged contribution history).