Below is my answer to the above question from @_lfausto on Twitter:

Even though I'm completely immersed in the world of blockchain & Web3, I typically start with the assumption that people are not machines. So when looking at the whole trust thing, separate trust between machines vs. trust between humans.

"Trust, but verify" is the optimist's path (originally made popular by US President, Ronald Reagan). The opposite, the cynics. Both can be true based on beliefs.

When "verifying" people, I use a combination of instinct/intuition, plus observation. Research online can be useful, but it doesn't always tell the whole story - as evidenced with the whole FTX saga.

What's popular isn't always what's true.

I also tend to reserve snap judgements until I've had a chance to meet someone in real life.

So if I've heard a bunch of rumors or accusations about a person, I question why, what are everyone's motives, what environment are they in, what biases are present. Then compare that with when I meet the accused in real life (if I have the opportunity to).

When it comes to online identity, I don't think we can get to the levels we aspire to in #Web3 until a majority of our day-to-day platforms are leveraging on-chain capabilities via nano payments.

This is because there are various layers of trust involved when it comes to humans, which can't always be programmed. Influenced? Yes. But not entirely predicted.