Trust Mesh

Composable credentials with revocation-aware trust state

Permission stateP1

Trust Mesh

Composable credentials with revocation-aware trust state. Credentials are either siloed documents or centralized platform scores that cannot be decomposed into verifiable source claims.

Trust Mesh is strongest when treated as a governed state machine, not a static token. The object must carry enough identity to be trusted at mint, enough mutable state to reflect the real workflow, and enough audit history for a third party to decide whether the current state is reliable.

Strategic thesis

Why this wedge exists

A composite trust score can be recomputed from independently verifiable credentials and revocation events.

The first buyer is Credential issuers, workforce networks, and marketplaces. They don't need a generic blockchain story; they need a way to reduce disputes, speed approval, and make the current status of a workflow independently checkable.

State Dual manages

Credential issuance, prerequisite satisfaction, composition, expiry, revocation, and trust level.

IssuedActiveStackedTier UpgradedDisputedRevoked

The important point is not the number of states. It's that each transition has an actor, an allowed action, evidence, and a durable audit record. That turns operational workflow into an inspectable object.

Token architecture

Immutable identitypermission_id, issuer_id, subject_id, scope_definition, issued_at
Mutable stateactive_scope, usage_count, trust_level, expiry_status, revocation_status
Compliance rulesPermission is checked before action, not after audit. Revocation immediately changes downstream eligibility. Prerequisites and issuer authority are queryable by relying parties.
Event sourcesissuer attestation, identity provider update, policy engine decision, counterparty access request

Example object schema

{
  "template": "trust_mesh",
  "category": "Permission state",
  "immutable": {
    "permission_id": "set_at_mint",
    "issuer_id": "set_at_mint",
    "subject_id": "set_at_mint",
    "scope_definition": "set_at_mint",
    "issued_at": "set_at_mint"
  },
  "mutable": {
    "active_scope": "updated_by_event",
    "usage_count": "updated_by_event",
    "trust_level": "updated_by_event",
    "expiry_status": "updated_by_event",
    "revocation_status": "updated_by_event"
  },
  "rules": {
    "allowed_states": ["Issued","Active","Stacked","Tier Upgraded","Disputed","Revoked"],
    "first_buyer": "Credential issuers, workforce networks, and marketplaces",
    "audit_required": true
  }
}

This schema is intentionally scoped. A credible first product should prove one object type, one core state machine, and a small number of high-value integrations before expanding into a platform.

User journey

  1. 1

    Issuer: Issued

    The Trust Mesh object is created with immutable identity, owner, and rule metadata.

  2. 2

    Operator: Active

    An event moves the object into "Active", preserving the previous state and the actor that triggered the change.

  3. 3

    Verifier: Stacked

    An event moves the object into "Stacked", preserving the previous state and the actor that triggered the change.

  4. 4

    Counterparty: Tier Upgraded

    An event moves the object into "Tier Upgraded", preserving the previous state and the actor that triggered the change.

  5. 5

    Auditor: Disputed

    An event moves the object into "Disputed", preserving the previous state and the actor that triggered the change.

  6. 6

    Automation: Revoked

    An event moves the object into "Revoked", preserving the previous state and the actor that triggered the change.

Event model

Dual becomes useful when outside systems stop being passive records and start becoming evidence sources for state transitions.

  • issuer attestation
  • identity provider update
  • policy engine decision
  • counterparty access request

Each event should answer four questions: who produced it, which object it affects, which transition it requests, and which proof should be retained for audit.

Why not just a database?

Traditional system

A platform trust score is useful inside one marketplace but cannot become a portable, inspectable credential stack.

That's acceptable when one organization owns the full workflow. It breaks down when multiple parties need to trust the same current state without relying on a single application owner.

Dual stateful object

Dual separates immutable identity, mutable lifecycle state, compliance checks, and event history. Participants can inspect the current object state, verify the transition path, and use the same state as input to payment, access, reporting, or downstream automation.

90-day MVP

Three issuers, five credentials, one prerequisite graph, one revoked credential, and one recalculated trust tier.

  • Define the template and allowed state transitions.
  • Mint test objects with realistic identity and ownership data.
  • Wire one external event source into the Event Bus.
  • Trigger one successful transition and one rejected transition.
  • Expose a query view that proves current state and transition history.

Proof assets required

  • Credential graph
  • Revocation cascade
  • Issuer role model
  • Trust-tier query

These assets are the difference between a concept note and a buildable wedge. Without them, the page is only a narrative; with them, it becomes a product specification.

Operating metrics

  • invalid actions blocked
  • revocation propagation time
  • credential reuse
  • manual review avoided

These are the metrics that should be visible in the pilot dashboard. They also give sales, implementation, and investor conversations a concrete way to judge whether Dual is improving the workflow.

Commercial wedge

The first commercial motion should sell a narrow operational outcome, not broad tokenization. For Trust Mesh, the wedge is: stack credentials. Price around the workflow value: fewer disputes, faster settlement, cleaner audit, lower fraud, or lower manual reconciliation.

Expansion should follow the state graph. Once the first transition is trusted, add the next actor, then the next integration, then the next reporting surface. That keeps the product grounded in workflow proof rather than speculative asset creation.

Risks and controls

  • issuer trust bootstrapping. Control: define the trusted source, log every mutation, and keep manual override paths explicit.
  • privacy expectations around identity state. Control: define the trusted source, log every mutation, and keep manual override paths explicit.
  • policy complexity as scopes multiply. Control: define the trusted source, log every mutation, and keep manual override paths explicit.

Implementation playbook

  1. Map the workflow: identify the actor responsible for each state and the evidence required for each transition.
  2. Create the template: split data into immutable identity, mutable state, and compliance rule fields.
  3. Mint sample objects: use realistic IDs, timestamps, owners, and source-system references.
  4. Connect one event: choose the event that makes the state change economically valuable.
  5. Reject one bad action: demonstrate that Dual blocks invalid transitions before downstream settlement.
  6. Expose audit: show current state, previous state, actor, timestamp, evidence hash, and rule result.

Build prompt

Create a Dual template for Trust Mesh. Model immutable identity fields, mutable lifecycle state, compliance checks, and event inputs. Then emit one test object and move it through: Issued → Active → Stacked → Tier Upgraded → Disputed.

Include:
- object schema
- transition rules
- event payload examples
- one rejected transition
- audit query output
- MVP dashboard fields

Use this as a scoped wedge: prove one governed state transition, one external event, and one audit query before expanding the workflow.

Start with the Dual quickstart →