# Suggestion to rename trust levels

**URL:** <https://forum.canton.network/t/suggestion-to-rename-trust-levels/700>\
**Category:** Outreach\
**Tags:** sugggestion\
**Created:** [June 22, 2020, 8:44am UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/suggestion-to-rename-trust-levels/700 "2020-06-22T08:44:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stefanobaghino-da](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forum.canton.network/stefanobaghino-da/32/7057_2.png) [@stefanobaghino-da](https://forum.canton.network/u/stefanobaghino-da)\
**Post date:** [June 22, 2020, 8:44am UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/suggestion-to-rename-trust-levels/700/1 "2020-06-22T08:44:17Z")

</div>

The current trust levels are nicely customized for DAML’rs, but I was thinking it would be nice to have them to be even more DAML-centric by using party qualifiers†.

The following have been suggested by @Martin_Huschenbett and @bernhard:

- trust level 0: `witness`
- trust level 1: `observer`
- trust level 2: `controller`
- trust level 3: `signatory`
- trust level 4: `operator`

† `operator` is not really a party qualifier but it’s a well established term for whoever’s running a ledger or a participant

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![andreolf](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forum.canton.network/andreolf/32/491_2.png) [@andreolf](https://forum.canton.network/u/andreolf)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2020, 8:17am UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/suggestion-to-rename-trust-levels/700/2 "2020-06-23T08:17:50Z")

</div>

Those customized names are amazing @stefanobaghino-da!