Hey all,
I’m building a zero-knowledge PKI system on Polkadot and working through the architecture for reputation scoring on roots and issuers within the trust hierarchy.
One of the higher-weight metrics I’m designing around is a multisig smart contract for trust revocation. The reasoning is straightforward: if a root or issuer trust chain is compromised, waiting on a full governance cycle isn’t acceptable. A defined set of keyholders should be able to sign to flag a root or issuer as untrusted immediately, with a time-locked fallback to on-chain governance if the multisig doesn’t act within a defined window.
The part I want community input on is signer composition. A few categories I’ve been considering:
●Technical Fellowship members
●Significant staked participants within the PKI system itself
●A purpose-built security council elected by stakeholders
●Independent auditors with formal exposure to the codebase
I’m also thinking about cross-category quorum requirements so no single group can dominate a revocation decision unilaterally.
It also goes without saying that the design must account for custodial “passing of the torch” as time marches on.
If anyone has prior art on multisig governance composition for high-stakes revocation scenarios in the Polkadot ecosystem, or strong opinions on any of the above, I’d genuinely appreciate the input.
-Prodigalwon