Part 1 – Introducing the Problem

The Power of On-Chain Reputation Systems: Why DeFi Lacks Contextual Trust

In decentralized finance (DeFi), transactions are trustless by design, yet paradoxically, trust remains an unsolved structural problem. While blockchains excel at verifying what happened — transaction amounts, time, and wallet addresses — they provide almost no semantic context on why an action occurred or how the actor behind it has behaved historically. This absence of behavioral memory leads to an environment that is credibly neutral, but credibly anonymous. And that's the root of a persistent vulnerability in DeFi: anyone can behave maliciously, and then just hop wallets.

DeFi repeat offenders — exploiters, MEV bots, manipulative governance attackers — persist largely unimpeded. Wallet reputation, slashing mechanisms, and blacklists are either too centralized, easily circumvented, or economically insufficient deterrents. The lack of a portable on-chain identity paired with an equally verifiable on-chain reputation score is DeFi’s open flank.

Unlike TradFi, which relies on long-standing credit histories, KYC, and centralized data aggregators, Web3 has failed to build a decentralized analogue. Sybil resistance tools like Proof of Humanity and Gitcoin Passport are steps in the right direction, but they’re not composable with the wider DeFi stack. Even governance tokens can be bought to fake influence, such as seen in earlier DAO takeovers. Without verifiable accountability measures connected to persistent identity, the system enables minimal skin in the game — users often encounter opaque incentive structures amplified by anonymity.

This issue hasn’t been prioritized because it lies outside the flashy narratives of yield farming and token pumps. Building a decentralized, interoperable reputation layer demands alignment across protocols with low direct revenue upside. That’s why the problem remains unexplored: hard coordination, limited monetization, and the risk of recreating surveillance under a new brand.

Reputation already shapes engagement in pseudonymous communities, such as those anchored in metaverse ecosystems. For example, in Decentraland, identity and engagement have measurable social capital — hinting at foundational elements for portable credibility scores. Projects like those outlined in A Deepdive into Decentraland begin to sketch frameworks where on-chain behavior becomes reputational currency.

The need is clear: we require an attribution system resistant to gaming, censorship, and subjectivity — one that translates transaction history and behavioral patterns into composable reputation indicators. This opens a dormant frontier in DeFi tooling, where identity becomes context, not just an address.

Expectations of puppeteered pumps or spontaneous community forks obscure the silent need for trust-minimized accountability primitives. As actors continue exploiting incentives without consequence, the absence of an on-chain reputation infrastructure will keep DeFi vulnerable — not just economically, but institutionally.

To explore this latent architecture, we must study how trust can be re-engineered not through centralization, but through cryptographic and game-theoretic primitives.

Part 2 – Exploring Potential Solutions

Credible Identities Without Central Authorities: Emerging On-Chain Reputation Frameworks

Solving the identity and trust problem in DeFi requires more than attaching wallets to reputations; it needs composable, non-custodial, and privacy-preserving mechanisms. Several approaches are gaining traction, from soulbound tokens (SBTs) to zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs), Web of Trust models, and decentralized identity (DID) frameworks. Each introduces trade-offs in privacy, sybil resistance, and interoperability.

Soulbound Tokens (SBTs), first explored in Vitalik Buterin’s paper with Weyl and Ohlhaver, represent non-transferable metadata bound to wallets. These can signify DAO memberships, attestations, or behavior markers. The strength here is immutability and traceability, but the primary weakness lies in permanence—misattached or malicious SBTs can poison reputations permanently, a problem that lacks revocation standards today.

Zero-Knowledge Reputation Proofs are promising for privacy-preserving score systems. Instead of revealing activity history, a zkSNARK or zk-STARK infrastructure can cryptographically prove that a wallet meets certain behavioral metrics (e.g., upholding loan obligations). Projects in this area remain largely theoretical or early-stage, hindered by high gas costs and trusted setup assumptions. Still, this direction aligns with recent shifts towards minimizing on-chain data surfaces while maximizing verifiability.

Decentralized Identity Systems, such as those leveraging W3C-compliant DIDs, attempt to create composable identity anchors across chains and protocols. These identities can be augmented by verifiable credentials issued by other wallets or DAOs. The UX fragility, however, is notable—lagging behind in developer tooling, DID adoption risks overcomplicating user onboarding and may result in fragmented pockets of trust rather than network-wide synergies. For further exploration, the article The Overlooked Promise of Decentralized Digital Identity Systems elaborates on this tension.

Reputation via Stake-Weighted Delegation is emerging in governance-heavy protocols. Users with reliable histories can accrue greater influence via delegated tokens or voting shares. This ties identity to measurable commitment but creates plutocratic tendencies unless paired with quadratic voting or curation markets.

Finally, some experimental platforms are exploring Reputation Oracles—entities that aggregate and verify identity signals off-chain before anchoring assessments on-chain. While conceptually useful, this introduces a trust bottleneck—centralization by oracle providers is an unsolved issue.

In systems like Decentraland, where identity, social signaling, and asset ownership converge, exploring hybrid models of social and economic reputation becomes increasingly relevant—a focus analyzed in Decentralizing Music: The Rise of Audius, which highlights alternative trust architectures driven by community curation and ownership.

As the field experiments with cryptographic veracity and human-centric trust signals, the next part will explore how these frameworks are (and aren’t) materializing in deployed protocols.

Part 3 – Real-World Implementations

Real-World On-Chain Reputation Systems: Testing Trust at Scale

Several decentralized protocols have attempted to embed on-chain reputation mechanisms directly into their user interactions, with mixed results. One prominent example is Aave’s Credit Delegation system. Here, reputation is built implicitly: a depositor can delegate their borrowing power to another address based on trust. While this doesn’t use an explicit reputation score, the reputational layer lives in the social and historical data of Ethereum addresses. The absence of standardized on-chain scoring, however, led to trust being largely personal and non-transferable—limiting scalability.

BrightID attempted a more explicit approach, creating a social graph to verify "uniqueness" rather than identity. It was adopted by platforms like 1Hive and Giveth to gate incentive pools, but the reliance on off-chain coordination (video verification calls) inserted friction inconsistent with DeFi's permissionless ethos. The data remains technically on-chain, but reputation itself wasn’t easily portable across protocols.

On the more ambitious end, projects like Karma (used by DAOs including Gitcoin and Bankless) tried consolidating contributor data from on- and off-chain sources—votes cast, proposals authored, Discord roles—into a single dashboard. But a key technical challenge was standards fragmentation. Most DAOs structure data uniquely; querying and normalizing this into meaningful metrics proved both resource-intensive and brittle. Additionally, the emphasis on governance participation skewed incentives, as some users gamified proposal activities just to improve visibility.

Lens Protocol offers a contrasting angle via its social graph built natively on-chain. Rather than abstract scores, Lens tracks direct interactions—follows, reactions, mirrors—which can act as soft reputation signals tied to wallets. While elegant, its reputation assumption is context-dependent: high engagement in one community doesn’t inherently translate to trust in a lending or staking context. Portability remains siloed within Lens-based dApps.

Even Decentraland indirectly tests reputation through land-based asset history and DAO participation records. Contributors with meaningful MANA governance footprints—namely proposal authors and active voters—are often more trusted in community deals. For a deeper analysis of Decentraland’s stakeholder governance mechanics, readers can explore https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/democratizing-decentraland-governance-through-mana.

Still, meaningful friction remains. Reputation scoring tied to assets risks plutocracy. Systems without standardized identity layers struggle with sybil resistance. And while proof-of-activity models offer objectivity, they’re often blind to nuance—surface level actions over deep contribution.

Part 4 will explore whether these design limits are fundamental, or simply artifacts of early-stage experimentation—and what long-term frameworks might evolve to redefine trust on-chain.

Part 4 – Future Evolution & Long-Term Implications

On-Chain Reputation Systems: The Road to Composability, Privacy, and Interoperability

As on-chain reputation systems mature, their architectures are moving beyond static scoring models and simple transaction histories. One emerging trend is composability—reputation layers that can seamlessly plug into multiple dApps across DeFi, gaming, DAOs, and social protocols without duplicating data or reinventing evaluation logic. Instead of creating isolated trust metrics siloed within a single ecosystem, modular reputation primitives are being experimented with for cross-protocol utility. This has implications for identity standardization and frictionless lending, governance eligibility, and role-based access within DAOs.

However, composability also comes with attack vectors. Shared credentials across platforms increase the blast radius of a Sybil or reputation farming exploit. Smart contract-level policies must adapt to weight the trustworthiness of imported data—and in some cases, reject reputational proofs that lack attestation diversity. There is growing traction for zero-knowledge reputation proofs, which can allow a user to demonstrate a specific threshold of trustworthiness without disclosing full interaction history. These privacy-preserving proofs could ease adoption among DeFi users wary of surveillance, though tooling remains experimental.

The push toward scalability is also driving innovation. Off-chain computation models like zk-rollups and decentralized reputation oracles are being explored to aggregate interaction data from Layer 2s or appchains while submitting succinct proofs to the main chain. This hybrid model has the potential to greatly reduce gas overhead and block space consumption, especially for protocols with millions of users or frequent activity. A similar pressure is being felt in the metaverse, where projects like Decentraland will need reputation frameworks that scale across virtual jurisdictions and user profiles, something explored further in The Overlooked Role of On-Chain Governance in Fostering Decentralized Community Engagement and Trust in Blockchain Ecosystems.

Interoperability between blockchains will also likely define the future of on-chain reputation. With user identity and interactions becoming increasingly multi-chain—especially with adoption surging on alt-L1s and liquidity venues like Curve or dYdX—protocols that don’t support cross-chain attestations risk fragmentation. Emerging Layer 0 communication protocols and decentralized identity bridges are positioning to fill this void, though latency, consistency guarantees, and disinformation resistance remain unresolved bottlenecks.

As infrastructure refines and cryptographic capabilities improve, a core question remains: who ultimately counts as trustworthy, and who gets to decide? These governance-layer concerns will be the lens of exploration in the next installment.

For those already building in DeFi, now may be the time to explore integrating dynamic reputation into user-facing smart contracts. Tools are emerging, and early adopters could gain an edge—especially those leveraging platforms with high composability like Binance referral link.

Part 5 – Governance & Decentralization Challenges

Governance and Decentralization Challenges in On-Chain Reputation Systems

When implementing on-chain reputation systems into decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols, governance becomes a double-edged sword. While decentralization promises censorship resistance and resilience, it doesn't come without hard-to-mitigate risks—particularly when governance design is closely tied to token-weighted voting systems.

Centralized vs. Decentralized Governance Tradeoffs

Centralized governance offers efficiency, rapid upgrades, and streamlined decision-making. However, in the context of reputation systems, centralization introduces single points of failure. A compromised core dev team or multisig controller could arbitrarily update reputation scores, blacklist wallets, or pivot the protocol’s foundational mechanics—all without community input. This undermines user trust and can trigger systemic downstream effects in composable DeFi stacks.

Conversely, decentralized governance models, often employing token-weighted voting via DAOs, present a façade of democratic participation. In reality, "one token, one vote" structures often slide into plutocracy. Wealth concentration allows large holders to disproportionately steer protocol changes, increasing the risk of governance attacks using flash-loaned tokens or vote buying schemes. Recent cases in protocols like dYdX and Compound have illustrated how decentralized governance can be exploited if not carefully architected.

Attack Vectors in Delegation and Voting

Delegated voting systems introduce their own complexities. While voter apathy is reduced, delegates can form powerful cartels, misaligning their incentives with the broader user base. If reputation tokens become integrated into governance rights themselves—for example, allowing actors with high scores to propose or veto changes—systems may inadvertently reward sybil-resistant but socially hostile behavior. It’s an open question whether gamified incentives can counterbalance long-term centralization creep.

Furthermore, governance token dynamics can create embedded regulatory capture. If entities like exchanges or custodial services act as delegates on behalf of users, they become de facto policymakers. Protocols then become vulnerable to capture from institutional players, especially if governance controls access to key infrastructure like oracles or liquidation engines.

Interoperability Risks Across Protocols

On-chain reputation systems gain potency when interoperable across multiple protocols. But differing governance regimes between those protocols—one DAO-driven, another multisig-governed—can create inconsistencies in reputation weightings, score interpretation, or dispute resolution. Integrations with metaverse ecosystems like Decentraland, where governance is underpinned by MANA token mechanisms, raise further alignment challenges when off-chain identity verification intersects with on-chain reputation.

As the governance layer becomes as critical as the execution layer, projects must confront the reality that decentralization isn't inherently safe—it just shifts the attack surface. In part 6, we will explore the underlying scalability constraints and engineering trade-offs involved in deploying on-chain reputation systems across EVM-compatible environments and Layer 2 rollups.

Part 6 – Scalability & Engineering Trade-Offs

Balancing Throughput and Trust: Engineering Trade-Offs in On-Chain Reputation Systems

Scaling on-chain reputation systems is not merely a matter of increasing transaction throughput—it’s a complex negotiation of trade-offs between decentralization, security, and latency. These systems, by design, depend on recording verifiable behavioral data on-chain, which inherently conflicts with bandwidth-limited consensus layers.

Ethereum’s base layer, while decentralized and secure, becomes congested quickly when reputation logic like staking-based attestation or peer feedback mechanisms are executed directly on-chain. Layer-2 rollups mitigate this by offloading computation and batching state updates, but introduce data availability concerns that can compromise the integrity of reputation scores. This tension between execution efficiency and verifiability poses a major bottleneck in protocol design.

Architectures also dictate how scalable a reputation system can be. App-chains like Cosmos zones or Polkadot parachains offer flexibility in customizing blockchains for identity-heavy DeFi use cases, but this fragmented environment demands robust interoperability infrastructure. Cross-chain data syncing for trust primitives—such as slashing histories or delegation patterns—is still unreliable despite IBC or messaging protocols, exposing systems to replay attacks or inconsistent state reads.

Consensus mechanisms play a pivotal role in how reputation updates are handled. Proof of Stake (PoS) systems incentivize validator honesty but often favor capital over historical behavior. Alternatives like Proof of Reputation or validator score-weighted consensus (e.g. using on-chain karma rather than stake) raise concerns about sybil resistance and decay-resistant score manipulation. In protocols like dYdX, even off-chain order books integrated with Layer-2 smart contract settlement must still account for fragmentation in participant data.

Also critical is the engineering overhead in handling zk-based identity proofs or decentralized identifiers (DIDs). Zero-knowledge attestations allow for privacy-preserving trust scores but are computationally intensive and require specialized circuits that many EVM-compatible platforms don’t support natively. This is particularly limiting for socially-driven virtual economies like Decentraland, where persistent identity and behavior tracking are core to governance systems—something explored in-depth in Decentraland's MANA: The Heart of Virtual Economy.

Ultimately, choosing where on the spectrum between decentralization and performance a reputation system lies is a governance decision as much as a technical one. But as platforms like zk-rollups, DAGs, and optimistic chains experiment with novel validation and data availability solutions, the implementation path remains fragmented and loaded with design constraints.

In the next installment, we’ll address a different axis of complexity: the regulatory and compliance risks that are beginning to surface as on-chain reputations mature into governance-critical infrastructure.

Part 7 – Regulatory & Compliance Risks

Legal and Regulatory Obstacles for On-Chain Reputation Mechanisms in DeFi

On-chain reputation introduces traceable accountability into decentralized finance, but it simultaneously treads deep into regulatory territory. Despite the sector’s commitment to code-as-law principles, reputational scores tied to wallet activity may conflict with global compliance norms—particularly Know Your Customer (KYC), data privacy mandates, and identity verification frameworks. Regulators may begin to interpret these score-generating systems as "identity proxies," triggering jurisdiction-specific scrutiny.

One glaring regulatory hazard lies in the classification of these reputation systems as de facto financial profiling tools. For example, if an address with a high DeFi reputation score qualifies for better loan rates on a platform, is that platform now engaging in discriminatory financial practices? And more importantly, is it subject to lending laws such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in the U.S., or the UK's Financial Conduct Authority frameworks?

Privacy regulations like the EU’s GDPR could also clash with on-chain permanence. The right to be forgotten contrasts with the immutability of blockchain—especially when reputational metadata can't be deleted or anonymized after the fact. If reputational mechanisms store behavioral or off-chain attestations, platforms might unknowingly become data controllers, triggering the full weight of data protection laws.

Jurisdictional fragmentation adds uncertainty. In DeFi, jurisdiction is often ambiguous. A smart contract operated by a DAO might have contributors across 30 nations, each interpreting “reputation” under different legal lenses—especially where credit scoring is tightly regulated. If one jurisdiction deems on-chain scores as financial identity systems, entire protocol operation models could be considered noncompliant overnight.

Historical enforcement trends show regulators are willing to retroactively apply frameworks. From the SEC’s action against ICOs to AML-focused crackdowns on mixers, regulatory precedent in crypto follows an ex-post pattern. On-chain reputation’s integration into undercollateralized lending, KYC-optional platforms, or decentralized identity schemes could draw similar retro regulatory action.

Government interventions—or worse, overcorrections—are not out of the question. Mandatory registration of all wallet-based behavioral analytics engines would kneecap composability and erode pseudonymity, one of crypto’s foundational principles. Reputation middleware composable across lending, trading, and gaming protocols would likely fall under multi-regime compliance burdens, effectively creating regulatory choke points.

Similar risks around governance and decentralized data handling can be seen in high-engagement ecosystems like Audius. For context, see the analysis in a-deepdive-into-audius, which demonstrates how decentralized content platforms grapple with user accountability under unclear legal guidance.

This evolving intersection of privacy, protocol design, and multi-jurisdictional oversight sets the stage for deeper financial implications. Part 8 will explore how on-chain reputation systems impact credit markets, capital flows, and systemic risk within decentralized finance environments.

Part 8 – Economic & Financial Implications

Financial Game-Changer or Underrated Risk? Unpacking the Economic Impact of On-Chain Reputation Systems in DeFi

On-chain reputation systems are not just soft social tools—they have hard financial implications that could disrupt traditional capital flows in decentralized finance. As programmable credentials become embedded into DeFi protocols, reputation scores could evolve into credit-like primitives, directly influencing lending rates, protocol access, and asset collateralization tiers.

For institutional investors, this introduces a double-edged sword. On one side, reputation layers can introduce new forms of due diligence in an otherwise pseudonymous landscape, bridging the comfort gap with Web3-native participants. Institutions could construct advanced strategies by allocating capital preferentially to high-reputation wallets across lending pools, DAO governance, or early-stage protocol participation. But reliance on quantifiable reputation metrics opens up a fresh attack surface: sybil-resistant scoring mechanisms remain imperfect, leaving the door ajar for manipulation or gaming of the system. One potential risk is investment exposure tied to artificial reputation bubbles—akin to overreliance on flawed credit ratings in traditional finance.

Developers and protocol architects stand to both benefit and lose. An accurate and transparent on-chain identity standard could enhance composability, enabling the creation of financial products that dynamically adjust terms based on user behavior history. However, protocols that fail to integrate reputation systems early may suffer protocol decay, as capital migrates to platforms offering higher yield with contextualized user history. This creates a competitive moat: developers who build with reputation-aware smart contracts may enforce more nuanced access controls, but at the expense of network neutrality and open innovation.

Retail traders, especially those engaging in yield farming or derivatives protocols, may find reputation to be a double bind. Positive behavior could entitle users to better capital efficiency; however, any misstep—liquidation, protocol abuse, front-run behavior—could create a permanent reputational scar, diminishing long-term DeFi participation. Unlike centralized systems where identities can be reset, the blockchain remembers.

A further wrinkle emerges around the financialization of reputation itself. Tokenizing reputation or lending against it could enable liquidity from otherwise illiquid trust capital. But this opens space for perverse incentives: systems may be gamed purely for reputational score farming, undermining the perceived integrity of the metric. Similar distortions have already emerged in metaverse economies like Decentraland, where token farming has affected fair value perception.

As financially incentivized reputation schemas become foundational layers of trust, the logic behind how we build credibility—and the economic systems surrounding it—is quietly being rewritten. These financial primitives hint at philosophical questions about identity, fairness, and memory in decentralized ecosystems, which we explore next.

Part 9 – Social & Philosophical Implications

The Economic Disruption of On-Chain Reputation Systems in DeFi

On-chain reputation could represent one of the most economically transformative vectors within DeFi—not through speculative price swings, but through structural shifts in value creation, risk assessment, and capital allocation. By aggregating wallet-based behavioral data into trust scores, reputation frameworks have the potential to collapse the traditional barriers of asymmetric information. However, that disruption comes with deeply divergent outcomes for different economic actors.

Institutional capital may benefit the most, ironically from the very transparency they once feared. With fine-grained, code-verifiable reputation metrics, funds can execute trust-minimized strategies in peer-to-peer lending, OTC derivatives, and DAOs without requiring centralized credit scores or intermediaries. It turns wallets into quantifiable risk corridors. That creates new structured product categories—reputation-tied yield tranches or collateral dynamic lending instruments—which could mirror traditional finance complexity but without the opacity.

For developers, this introduces both an incentive layer and a governance burden. A team building a protocol with integrated on-chain reputation mechanisms becomes part-UX designer, part-judge. Staking logic, slashing conditions, and forgiveness mechanisms around behavioral scoring can unintentionally encode biases—penalizing newer wallets or wallets engaging in novel use patterns. That could pressure developers into adopting standardized reputation frameworks similar to credit bureaus in TradFi, ushering in de facto gatekeepers if not handled carefully.

Retail traders may face the most uncertain terrain. While power users with clean, high-interaction, smart contract-friendly histories might see preferential rates, traders who engage in more aggressive strategies—MEV bots, flash loan arbitrage, or repeated liquidations—could become structurally penalized. Entire trading verticals might be priced differently based on reputation curves, creating bifurcated access within previously open protocols.

The introduction of market pricing mechanisms tied to social trust data also opens latent attack surfaces. Using sybil-resistant reputation to determine loan rates sounds efficient—until participants begin coordinating to artificially inflate scores, or when decentralized collusion emerges to blacklist entities. If poorly regulated or over-weighted, reputation systems could lead to systemic liquidity cascades, as in scenarios where too many ‘trusted’ actors suddenly default.

This makes the rise of reputation an ideological fault line as much as a financial one. Institutions and whales may embrace it; cypherpunks and anons may resist it. Incentive-aligned design remains key. And precedent already exists—virtual economies like Decentraland are beginning to experiment with behavioral weighting in governance, as explored in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/democratizing-decentraland-governance-through-mana.

As these dynamics deepen, complex philosophical tensions begin to emerge between pseudonymity, identity, and reputation. That’s where we go next.

Part 10 – Final Conclusions & Future Outlook

On-Chain Reputation Systems in DeFi: A Future Defined by Trust—or Missed Potential?

After a deep exploration across this series, the transformative potential of on-chain reputation systems is clear—offering not just mechanisms of trust in trustless ecosystems, but deeply programmable identities that self-update with each transaction and interaction. However, the conclusions are far from settled. If anything, we stand at an inflection point.

A best-case future sees on-chain reputations underpinning a more meritocratic DeFi, cutting down on Sybil attacks, enabling more nuanced credit scoring, automating DAO trust hierarchies, and optimizing yield strategies through verified user history. DAOs could evolve from flat voting structures to delegated trust layers, weighted by provable behavior. Platforms like dYdX already push toward such mechanisms in governance and trading access—all of which require greater personalization and accountability powered by on-chain metrics.

But the alternative path is bleak: privacy erosion, identity lock-ins, and reputational monopolies if dominant protocols implement opaque or immutable scoring systems without user sovereignty. The risk of fragmentation is real. Without coordination or interoperability standards (e.g. cross-chain reputation bridges), users may face siloed trust scores, mirroring Web2 loyalty programs rather than building toward a decentralized self-sovereign identity network. Even worse, these systems may quietly adopt off-chain oracles to generate "reputation," blurring the line between decentralized trust and centralized judgment.

The unanswered questions remain pressing: Should reputation decay over time? Can it be portable across chains and dApps? How do we guard against subjective scoring baked into protocol logic, and who audits the algorithms? If an address is compromised, can reputation reset without a hard identity reset?

Mainstream adoption hinges on usability and reversibility. Protocols must offer opt-in models that respect privacy yet allow incentivized users to benefit from their on-chain history. Reputation primitives that are composable, chain-agnostic, and user-controlled will be the new gold—or become the new surveillance capitalism if misused.

Until then, DeFi remains in a limbo of pseudonymity and incomplete context. A future where addresses are meaningful beyond wallets is plausible—but fragile. As we watch experiments across governance, staking, and community curation unfold, we must ask:

Will on-chain reputation become the foundation of a decentralized meritocracy, or just another experiment buried under the ashes of crypto’s forgotten promises?

Interested in seeing how reputation systems could intersect with decentralized media? Check out how platforms like Audius are rethinking creator trust and governance.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com