Is on-chain taste reputation a real primitive or just a bull market narrative?

We're drowning in AI-generated content and nobody has solved the signal problem. Recommendation algorithms optimize for engagement, not quality. Curators and early spotters get no credit and no reward. "Good" is just whatever the training data said yesterday.

Been thinking about this for a while and came across a project trying to tackle it in an interesting way: Tastor. The core mechanic is simple: rate anything 0–100. That rating becomes a permanent EAS attestation on Base. Immutable, verifiable, portable. Your taste history lives on-chain and is actually yours.

What caught my attention is the rewards structure. Early raters whose scores land closest to eventual consensus earn retroactively. So it explicitly rewards people who call quality before the crowd does, not just participation farming. That's a meaningfully different incentive design than most curation projects I've seen.

Tokenomics are pretty clean for this space. Fixed 1B supply, half going to emissions and rewards, liquidity covered, team on a four year vest with a six month cliff, treasury locked. Fair bonding curve, no VC pre-mine.

Bear case is obvious, subjective taste is hard to monetize sustainably and these systems get gamed once money is involved. Bull case is that as AI content scales infinitely, verifiable human judgment becomes the scarce resource. Not just as a consumer app but as an oracle layer that agents and brands actually pay to query.

Has anyone looked into EAS-based reputation systems before? Curious whether the incentive mechanics hold up or if this is a hot wrapper on a problem that's been tried and failed.

Biased. I have a personal interest in this. DYOR.

(Tastor .xyz)