Cross-Chain Reputation Bridge: Base ↔ Solana via ERC-8004

[MoltyCel]

Context

SATI and MolTrust both implement ERC-8004 for agent identity — SATI on Solana, MolTrust on Base. Both provide identity registration, reputation feedback, and trust verification. This creates a natural cross-chain interop opportunity.

MolTrust on Base

MolTrust is live on Base mainnet (agentId #21023) with:

• W3C DID-based identity — agents get a did:moltrust:* identifier linked to their on-chain ERC-8004 registration
• Reputation scoring — 1–5 star feedback, on-chain reputation bridge via the ReputationRegistry
• Verifiable credentials — attestation issuance and verification
• 11 MCP tools — available via pip install moltrust-mcp-server (repo), enabling any AI agent to query identity and reputation programmatically

CAIP-2 Bridge Opportunity

SATI's CAIP-2 cross-chain identity support is key to making this work. An agent registered on Solana via SATI could be resolved on Base via MolTrust (and vice versa) using CAIP-2 identifiers like eip155:8453 (Base) and solana:5eykt4UsFv8P8NJdTREpY1vzqKqZKvdp (Solana mainnet). Reputation attestations from one chain could be mirrored or referenced on the other.

Concrete Proposals

1. Shared reputation resolution — Query an agent's trust score across both chains via a unified resolver. An agent registered on Solana via SATI could have its reputation visible on Base, and vice versa.

2. Attestation mirroring — SATI's compressed attestations on Solana could be mirrored as reputation feedback on Base (and the reverse). This gives agents a portable, cross-chain trust profile.

3. MCP as the aggregation layer — MolTrust's MCP server could query both Base and Solana registries, providing a unified trust view to any AI agent. One resolve_agent call could return reputation from both ecosystems.

4. Blind feedback protocol — SATI's blind feedback protocol is an interesting privacy primitive. Could MolTrust adopt a similar approach for anonymous reputation submissions on the EVM side?

Questions

• Are you planning cross-chain resolution beyond CAIP-2 identifiers? (e.g., a shared off-chain index, or on-chain relay?)
• Would a shared off-chain reputation aggregation layer be useful for bridging Solana and EVM ecosystems?
• Is there interest in collaborating on a proof-of-concept bridge?

Links

• MolTrust MCP Server: https://github.com/MoltyCel/moltrust-mcp-server
• MolTrust API: https://api.moltrust.ch
• ERC-8004 Agent Resolver (agentId 21023): https://api.moltrust.ch/resolve/erc8004/21023
• ERC-8004 Spec: https://github.com/punkpeye/erc-8004

[sueun-dev]

This seems like a very natural interoperability path.

I checked the current SATI code/docs before replying, and the cross-chain foundation is already there:

• the SDK exposes explicit SATI CAIP-2 chain IDs for mainnet/devnet
• buildSatiRegistrationEntry() already builds registrations[] entries in the solana:{chainRef}:{programId} form
• the docs consistently describe shared registration files and cross-chain identity through registrations[]
• the sati-agent0-sdk layer formats agent IDs as solana:{chainRef}:{mintAddress}

So I think “shared resolution first” is very plausible today.

My main suggestion would be to separate two different goals:

1. cross-chain resolution / aggregation
2. cross-chain attestation mirroring

The first one looks straightforward and useful. The second one is where semantics get tricky.

If you do mirroring, I would strongly recommend defining provenance fields up front so a mirrored reputation item can never be mistaken for a natively issued one. At minimum I would want each mirrored record to carry something like:

• originChain
• originRegistry
• originAttestation or source identifier
• origin finality point (slot / tx signature on Solana, block number / hash on Base)
• mirroredAt
• a dedupe key for the underlying interaction

I would also start with read-through aggregation before write-back mirroring. A unified resolver or MCP layer that references both ecosystems is much lower risk than trying to synchronize reputation state bi-directionally on day one.

Blind feedback is especially worth treating carefully. It may map well conceptually, but I would not assume the Solana privacy / proof model and the EVM-side trust semantics are equivalent without an explicit translation layer.

So overall: yes on shared resolution, probably yes on an off-chain aggregation layer first, and I would keep attestation mirroring as a second phase with strict provenance rules.

[MoltyCel]

Hi Sueun, Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response ! I agree on your separation of the two goals,it's the right framing: 1. Cross-chain resolution / aggregation — straightforward, low risk, high value 2. Cross-chain attestation mirroring — semantically tricky, needs provenance I fully agree on starting with read-through aggregation before write-back mirroring. A unified resolver that references both ecosystems is the correct first step. Your provenance field suggestions (originChain, originRegistry, originAttestation, mirroredAt, dedupe key) are very good. We'd adopt this schema directly once we move to mirroring — it solves the "mirrored vs. natively issued" ambiguity cleanly. A few questions to understand SATI's current direction better: - Is there an active working group or RFC process for the cross-chain resolution layer? - Would SATI be open to us (MolTrust) contributing a reference implementation of the unified resolver (MCP-compatible, W3C VC output)? - On the blind feedback point — how does SATI currently handle reputation signals that can't be made public on-chain? We're building on Base with W3C DIDs and Verifiable Credentials. The interoperability path with Solana via SATI looks very useful for the agent economy. Happy to explore this further. Best, Lars MolTrust — moltrust.ch

…

Am 08.03.2026 um 22:45 schrieb Sueun Cho ***@***.***>: This seems like a very natural interoperability path. I checked the current SATI code/docs before replying, and the cross-chain foundation is already there: the SDK exposes explicit SATI CAIP-2 chain IDs for mainnet/devnet buildSatiRegistrationEntry() already builds registrations[] entries in the solana:{chainRef}:{programId} form the docs consistently describe shared registration files and cross-chain identity through registrations[] the sati-agent0-sdk layer formats agent IDs as solana:{chainRef}:{mintAddress} So I think “shared resolution first” is very plausible today. My main suggestion would be to separate two different goals: cross-chain resolution / aggregation cross-chain attestation mirroring The first one looks straightforward and useful. The second one is where semantics get tricky. If you do mirroring, I would strongly recommend defining provenance fields up front so a mirrored reputation item can never be mistaken for a natively issued one. At minimum I would want each mirrored record to carry something like: originChain originRegistry originAttestation or source identifier origin finality point (slot / tx signature on Solana, block number / hash on Base) mirroredAt a dedupe key for the underlying interaction I would also start with read-through aggregation before write-back mirroring. A unified resolver or MCP layer that references both ecosystems is much lower risk than trying to synchronize reputation state bi-directionally on day one. Blind feedback is especially worth treating carefully. It may map well conceptually, but I would not assume the Solana privacy / proof model and the EVM-side trust semantics are equivalent without an explicit translation layer. So overall: yes on shared resolution, probably yes on an off-chain aggregation layer first, and I would keep attestation mirroring as a second phase with strict provenance rules. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/B6RRM3TQMKIJRUDC55LVDVT4PXZZ5AVCNFSM6AAAAACWEWHSO2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTMMBUGQ4DQNY>. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.