On-chain crowdsourcing leverages blockchain’s decentralization, transparency, and tamper-resistance to build trustworthy and verifiable Web3 crowdsourced services. However, existing decentralized reputation frameworks do not reconcile anonymity, reputation binding, and scalability. This paper demonstrates how on-chain crowdsourcing can simultaneously achieve these requirements under a trust-minimized model. We introduce <tex-math notation="LaTeX">DARTIC</tex-math><alternatives>DARTIC</alternatives>, a decentralized, anonymous, and scalable reputation-driven framework for crowdsourcing. <tex-math notation="LaTeX">DARTIC</tex-math><alternatives>DARTIC</alternatives> presents a dual-ledger system that enables requesters and workers to use distinct pseudonyms across interactions, ensuring unlinkability while maintaining accountability. To mitigate Sybil and reputation-reset attacks, we employ zkSNARK-based set membership proofs, cryptographically binding all user pseudonyms to a single access token without revealing the linkage. For scalability, we investigate two aggregation techniques that compress multiple proofs into a single succinct proof to minimize verification overhead. In addition, we design an automated, privacy-preserving reputation model that dynamically evaluates contributions across diverse crowdsourcing contexts. To demonstrate practicality, we instantiate and assess <tex-math notation="LaTeX">DARTIC</tex-math><alternatives>DARTIC</alternatives> in both crowdsensing and federated learning scenarios. Experimental results show that (i) individual proof generation for token spending completes in less than 3 s, (ii) aggregation reduces the verification time of 1024 proofs from 8.7 s to 0.96 s, and (iii) zk-batching lowers gas costs by more than 100× compared to a pure Layer-1 deployment. These results demonstrate that anonymity, robust reputation binding, and scalability can be jointly achieved in fully decentralized crowdsourcing systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bouchiha et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: