A Review on Blockchain-Based Trust and Reputation Schemes in Metaverse Environments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper provides a broad and systematic review of recent studies on blockchain-based trust and reputation systems in the metaverse. By employing a PRISMA-based literature selection methodology, the authors ensure transparency and reproducibility in their review process. The taxonomy that classifies existing schemes into token-based, score-based, credential-based, and infrastructure-based mechanisms offers a comprehensive understanding of how trust is established and managed in metaverse ecosystems. Furthermore, the discussion effectively balances the trade-offs among security, scalability, and privacy, while the chosen topic trust in blockchain-enabled metaverse environments is timely and highly relevant to current research trends in 2025. Overall, the paper demonstrates logical consistency and academic rigor and is likely to serve as a valuable reference for researchers exploring decentralized trust models in emerging virtual worlds.
However, several areas could be strengthened. Most of the comparisons presented are qualitative rather than quantitative, and the inclusion of performance metrics such as TPS or latency would enhance the objectivity of the analysis. Additionally, the discussion on privacy-preserving trust mechanisms is limited; integrating recent advances in ZKP (Zero-Knowledge Proof) and MPC (Multi-Party Computation) frameworks such as zkSBTs or zkDIDs would make the paper more comprehensive. The section on interoperability could also be expanded to cover cross-chain trust mechanisms like MAP, LayerZero, Polkadot, or Cosmos IBC. From a structural perspective, Section 5 (Taxonomy) is overly lengthy and would benefit from concise comparative tables or visual summaries. Finally, the paper would be further enriched by including an industrial perspective specifically, a comparative analysis of commercial metaverse platforms (e.g., Meta, Microsoft Mesh, Roblox) and academic prototypes to bridge theoretical insights with real-world implementations.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully revised the paper in line with all suggestions. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response outlining the major revisions made.
Comment 1:
Most of the comparisons presented are qualitative rather than quantitative. The inclusion of performance metrics such as TPS or latency would enhance the objectivity of the analysis.
Response 1:
We appreciate this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, Section 6 now includes a dedicated subsection 6.4 titled “Performance Metrics and Quantitative Comparison” (pp. 24). This subsection presents a benchmark analysis of five representative blockchain platforms comparing their throughput (TPS), latency, consensus mechanisms, and gas or energy costs.
Comment 2:
The discussion on privacy-preserving trust mechanisms is limited; integrating recent advances in ZKP and MPC frameworks such as zkSBTs or zkDIDs would make the paper more comprehensive.
Response 2:
We agree with the reviewer’s observation and have expanded Section 7.2 (Privacy-Preserving Reputation) to include a new discussion of zero-knowledge Soulbound Tokens (zkSBTs) and zero-knowledge Decentralized Identifiers (zkDIDs) (pp.26).
The revised text explains how zkSBTs enable verifiable reputation proofs without revealing underlying credential data, and how zkDIDs facilitate selective disclosure of identity attributes through zero-knowledge proofs.
Comment 3:
The section on interoperability could also be expanded to cover cross-chain trust mechanisms like MAP, LayerZero, Polkadot, or Cosmos IBC.
Response 3:
We have now included a new subsubsection 6.2.1 under subsection 6.2, titled “Cross-Chain Trust Mechanisms” (pp. 22–23). This subsection discusses and contrasts four leading interoperability frameworks, MAP Protocol, LayerZero, Polkadot, and Cosmos IBC, highlighting their distinct approaches to cross-chain verification, message relaying, and trust portability.
Comment 4:
Section 5 (Taxonomy) is overly lengthy and would benefit from concise comparative tables or visual summaries.
Response 4:
We appreciate this structural suggestion. Section 5 has been condensed and reorganized to improve readability.
Comment 5:
The paper would be further enriched by including an industrial perspective—specifically, a comparative analysis of commercial metaverse platforms (e.g., Meta, Microsoft Mesh, Roblox) and academic prototypes to bridge theoretical insights with real-world implementations.
Response 5:
To address this valuable recommendation, we added a new comparative Table 7 and corresponding discussion in Section 7.8 titled “Unified Evaluation and Collaboration” (pp-29-30).
This table compares three major commercial metaverse platforms, Meta Horizon Worlds, Microsoft Mesh, and Roblox, with academic prototype frameworks based on blockchain-enabled trust models. This addition bridges theoretical research and practical implementation gaps, thereby enriching the manuscript’s applied relevance.
Comment 6:
Please ensure consistency in terminology, structure, and overall flow after these additions.
Response 6:
The manuscript has undergone comprehensive language and formatting refinement to ensure consistent terminology, uniform citation formatting, and logical transitions between sections. All new tables and subsections have been cross-referenced within the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present an analysis of existing blockchain solutions across diverse metaverse domains, including gaming, virtual real estate, healthcare, and education, in order to provide a comprehensive taxonomy that classifies current trust and reputation schemes, evaluating key performance metrics such as security robustness, scalability, user privacy, and cross-platform interoperability.
Some refs are not displaying correctly.
The structure of the paper is missing, and should be put in the end of the Introduction.
Are there any other related surveys? And how this survey extends the SOTA?
The structure of 2.1 should be optimized. One thing is the blockchain architectures, the other thing is trust mechanisms and consensus mechanisms. The relation between trust mechanisms and consensus mechanisms should be clarified.
Ref 14 is analyzed again in 4.3, so why it is mentioned in 2.1? In 2.1 a more general view of BC architectures and consensus mechanisms should take place.
In 4.3, ref 46 should be analyzed more.
In general, the paper is well written and presents interest to the readers.
Author Response
Comment 1: Some refs are not displaying correctly.
Response 1: We have audited and corrected the entire bibliography and citation pipeline. All references now render correctly in the PDF and align with their in-text citations
Comment 2: The structure of the paper is missing, and should be put in the end of the Introduction.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this critical component of the paper. We have incorporated the structure at the end of the Introduction section.
Comment 3: Are there any other related surveys? And how this survey extends the SOTA?
Response 3: Prior surveys primarily address blockchain foundations for the metaverse or domain-specific identity/security, offering valuable architectural and privacy perspectives but stopping short of classifying metaverse-specific trust and reputation mechanisms or benchmarking metaverse-relevant platforms. We have added a paragraph in the end of related work section and a table 3 shows the Related surveys adjacent to blockchain-based trust/reputation in the metaverse (PP-14).
Comment 4:The structure of 2.1 should be optimized. One thing is the blockchain architectures, the other thing is trust mechanisms and consensus mechanisms. The relation between trust mechanisms and consensus mechanisms should be clarified.
Response 4: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this relation. We have updated Section 2.1 in light of your suggestion.
Comment 5: Ref 14 is analyzed again in 4.3, so why it is mentioned in 2.1? In 2.1 a more general view of BC architectures and consensus mechanisms should take place. In 4.3, ref 46 should be analyzed more.
Response 5: We agree. Section 2.1 has been revised to provide only a concise, platform-agnostic overview of blockchain architectures. We removed the detailed discussion of Ref. 14 from Section 2.1 to avoid duplication. Ref. 14 is now treated exclusively in Section 4.3, which analyzes its design and positioning within our taxonomy. In addition, the analysis of Ref. 46 in Section 4.3 has been expanded.
