WAL itself is not a reputation token, and that design choice feels intentional. Walrus separates economic accountability from social reputation. Instead of tracking subjective scores, the protocol relies on objective outcomes: did the data remain available, and did the participant meet their commitments? WAL staking and slashing already encode consequences for failure, which reduces the need for abstract reputation layers. That said, higher-level applications can build reputation systems on top of Walrus. WAL becomes an input signal—showing long-term participation or stake commitment—rather than a direct reputation score. This keeps the base layer simple and avoids entrenching subjective judgments into protocol logic.
@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #Walrus
