Yes, Human Passport is a separate project. I’ve spent quite a lot of time looking into possible PoH (Proof-of-Humanity) solutions, and this one was also considered (which, I must admit, is really really cool). The main reason why we haven’t proposed zkPassport to be used is that ICS needs to be:
(on the one hand) robust and sybil resistant
(on the other hand) accessible and must respect users privacy
There are people who are not comfortable scanning their passports and go through any kind of KYC (even if it’s zk-proof based). The decision to propose Human Passport as the main solution stems from the number of “verification” options they offer: from KYC thing (check out “Government ID option here) to on-chain activity heuristics (check out “Ethereum” stamp here).
Good catch! Also looked at it a while ago, and it’s one of the most efficient solutions based on the technology they introduced (as well as UX). Here there were two reasons for not including this solution to the ICS framework:
World ID verification is not available for some counties
There are just a few devices located in EU
These reasons do not make a solution bad (at all!), they just limit accessibility.
Now the question is: why not to use multiple solutions in ICS, people will decide on their own what to use (like include all: Human Passport, World ID, zkPassport, etc.)?
The reason is that using multiple solutions of the same (PoH) kind will create more room for abuse for the ICS framework: one single person will have a chance to go through all of these PoH protocols and receive 3 different proofs for just 1 identity. It multiples the risks for the ICS framework.
That is why Human Passport has been proposed to be used for ICS as it combines multiple ways of verification in just 1 platform.
Identity Staking is just one of the options offered by Human Passport. You can check out the details here (under the “Identity Staking” stamp).
Thanks @Aleksandra_G for the detailed breakdown of ICS’s approach and the rationale behind selecting a single PoH provider (Human Passport)!
It makes sense that if ICS were to accept multiple PoH systems (e.g., zkPassport, World ID, Human Passport), a single individual could potentially obtain multiple valid attestations, and DeFi protocols like Lido may have no way of knowing they all belong to the same person. So doing identity resolution at the aggregation layer with Human Passport within the ICS framework sounds like the right design choice.
Thanks as well for the clarity around how on-chain activity heuristics are being used to strengthen Sybil resistance. I’m curious if there’s any future consideration for incorporating off-chain attestations into the ICS framework, building upon Proof of Humanity. I see that GitHub, Snapshot, and Guild is already included, which is great, but wondering if there’s room to broaden this further to include things like verifiable education credentials (Proof of Experience) or hybrid adoption contributions (Proof of Engagement), such as onboarding new communities and/or institutions, managing real-world integrations, or leading education initiatives for non-crypto users.
By hybrid adoption efforts, I mean the ground-level work involved in bridging Web2 and Web3 domains through real-world integration. This includes helping non-crypto-native users, institutions, or platforms adopt Web3 technologies, without requiring them to be fully onchain or crypto-native from day one. I suppose you can call it the Web2.5 layer: where user segments are not pure DeFi nor pure tradfi but somewhere in between. These efforts are especially relevant in regions such as Asia where validator onboarding, compliance navigation, and educational outreach are key to enabling broader participation in staking ecosystems.
These hybrid adoption contributions may be particularly relevant to Lido DAO’s goals and CSM’s mandate to bring more independent, human-verified, and diverse validators into Lido in order to decentralize the validator set and strengthen Ethereum’s overall health. Expanding in this direction could help surface meaningful participants who may not show up strongly in traditional dev metrics but could still contribute significantly to ecosystem growth.
Thank you for reading, I appreciate this forum for open discussion in helping shape the ICS framework together.
I think that this is great step to decentralize staking on Ethereum!
I was thinking about potential disadvantages of this proposal, but looks like it has only benefites
I’m sure that this proposal will be supported and shall pass
On behalf of the CSM Committee, I would like to share the list of GitPOAPs that will be utilized under the Proof-of-Engagement category in the ICS framework. The list includes GitPOAPs from the following groups of projects:
Note: Some projects within these categories do not currently have GitPOAPs and are therefore not included in this list. The CSM Committee will continue to update the list as needed.
For proof of engagement, I spoke at ETHBelgrade 2025 on the topic “Stablecoins are eating finance: A frontline report” (you can search it on yt, otherwise I would have linked it here) - could someone please check if this would be considered sufficient?
Given the approaching on-chain voting slot, I want to highlight that the following parameters for a shareLimit increase for CSM will be included in the next on-chain vote:
stakeShareLimit = 500 BP
priorityExitShareThreshold = 625
The value for the first parameter (stakeShareLimit) has been explicitly approved by the Lido DAO in the corresponding snapshot vote. The value for the second parameter (priorityExitShareThreshold) is calculated according to the previous considerations regarding priority exit leeway for CSM - Community Staking Module - #86 by dgusakov
For the voters’ comfort, CSM contributors have prepared a short note on the vote steps related to CSM v2 with sources of truth linked to each step - CSM vote steps with details - HackMD
Besides other voting items, it contains a Dual Governance proposal with a CSM v2 on-chain activation.
The vote will be open for your “For” or “Against” input until the end of the main phase: Sep 26, 15:32 UTC. For instructions on how to verify the vote items, please follow this guide.
Huge thanks to all who supported CSM v2. With the on-chain vote #192 enacted CSM v2 is officially live on Ethereum mainnet. Happy validation, Home Stakers!
Following the completion of ICS Round 1, the CSM committee will be updating the ICS tree on mainnet.
This round saw 172 applications, of which 86 were approved.
