Designing Something We’d Actually Trust

Trust is easy to talk about and hard to earn.

Most systems claim to be fair. Very few are designed to be. The difference usually shows up in the details — in the incentives, the shortcuts, and the exceptions that quietly creep in over time.

When we started shaping Support Independents, we used a simple test: would we trust this if we were on the other side of it?

That question ruled out a lot of things early on. Complex scoring systems. Preferential treatment. “Helpful” boosts that quietly favour some over others. Anything that needed a long explanation to justify why it was fair.

What we were left with was something simpler — and more demanding.

If everyone starts on equal footing, the system has to stand on its own logic. If visibility can’t be bought, the experience has to feel worthwhile without manipulation. And if trust is the goal, transparency has to be built in from the start, not added later.

Designing something we’d actually trust means accepting fewer shortcuts. But it also means building something that doesn’t need defending.

That trade-off felt worth making.