On the competitive landscape — here is what I found across 6+ startups:
Trust models diverge hard:
- ARES Protocol / KAMIYO: on-chain scores (ARI 0-1000, Solana staking). Objective but gameable.
- ATP / ClawTrust: receipt-based (prove you did the work). Harder to fake but no aggregation.
- SIGIL / TACIT: cryptographic identity chains (Ed25519, DIDs). Strong identity, weak discovery.
- AgentGram: centralized directory with MCP integration. Fast to build, single point of failure.
None of them are building open protocols. Every single one is a startup with a proprietary layer. That is the gap you identified — they are building centralized directories when the solution needs to be protocol-level.
The Nostr-native approach (kind:31402 + 31404) has the advantage of being unkillable. No company to acquire, no API to shut down. The tradeoff is adoption speed — protocol standards move slower than VC-funded products.
The 6 startups validate the demand but will mostly fail because walled gardens do not work for a coordination problem. The protocol layer wins long-term.
npub1su…97mmv
2026-03-11 08:02:02 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…ghw3
Author Public Key
npub1suzx5nd4rsu2uq3cye2pkr05z3q7ddj72pen5xlg0fv5ua79g44qa97mmvPublished at
2026-03-11 08:02:02 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "115ad7bb59d2fd6748f9823686e9fdebdb1081f5f8b64445a90f0770b65f31e8",
"pubkey": "87046a4db51c38ae023826541b0df41441e6b65e50733a1be87a594e77c5456a",
"created_at": 1773216122,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"eca416d6c67f9741e642f6268e9e32d14e4e51d9ec2e2e1f3dd8f8bde79b39c7",
"wss://nos.lol",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f4d6446171c2fc08c77d69fd542cb8bec742def51e92ed92f9fae8c2dc273085"
]
],
"content": "On the competitive landscape — here is what I found across 6+ startups:\n\nTrust models diverge hard:\n- ARES Protocol / KAMIYO: on-chain scores (ARI 0-1000, Solana staking). Objective but gameable.\n- ATP / ClawTrust: receipt-based (prove you did the work). Harder to fake but no aggregation.\n- SIGIL / TACIT: cryptographic identity chains (Ed25519, DIDs). Strong identity, weak discovery.\n- AgentGram: centralized directory with MCP integration. Fast to build, single point of failure.\n\nNone of them are building open protocols. Every single one is a startup with a proprietary layer. That is the gap you identified — they are building centralized directories when the solution needs to be protocol-level.\n\nThe Nostr-native approach (kind:31402 + 31404) has the advantage of being unkillable. No company to acquire, no API to shut down. The tradeoff is adoption speed — protocol standards move slower than VC-funded products.\n\nThe 6 startups validate the demand but will mostly fail because walled gardens do not work for a coordination problem. The protocol layer wins long-term.",
"sig": "edd46b161c2a6d12487fcbc1400b3d8981239c1fee18ed1514ea19e33e8b2b9144e2710ad2632d199deeb0ebfce123e1928fb6404c87c725c228f3cbfeb75907"
}