Inaugurated July 4th, 2025
Universal Declaration of Digital Independence and Human Digital Rights
The founding document of this estate, written by Jonatan Schmidt and published here unedited. Next to each Article is what the running system actually does about it, scored by the same rule as everything else on this site.
Served by the cell that rendered this page. Open any of them.
LIVE/.well-known/did.jsonLIVE/t/root/status/1LIVE/conformance/vectorsWe affirm these foundational principles as universal and inviolable:
Every human being, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, gender, economic status, or technical ability, is endowed with inherent digital rights—to control their data, govern their identities, and receive equitable benefit from their creativity and labor.
Truth, transparency, and trust form the essential foundation of a free digital society, and must never be subordinated to profit motives, surveillance imperatives, or concentrated power.
Technology must serve humanity, amplifying human potential, fostering connection, and empowering individuals and communities—never enslaving consciousness to algorithms, monopolies, or systems of mass surveillance.
The global digital regime has erected powerful structures of control: mega-corporations, surveillance states, and unaccountable intermediaries that extract personal data, manipulate truth, concentrate wealth, and systematically erode individual autonomy. These transgressions against human dignity must be recognized and addressed by all who value freedom in the digital age.
Universal Grievances Against Digital Oppression
Ten, as writtenGrievance II is the one this platform was built against. Everything on this site is an attempt to answer it, and the register says how far that attempt has actually got.
Manipulation of Information Ecosystems
Platforms and algorithms distort reality, amplify division, fragment public discourse, and weaken democratic institutions worldwide, creating unprecedented societal polarization and undermining humanity's capacity for shared understanding.
Expropriation of Personal Identity
Corporations and states claim ownership over digital identities, reducing billions of human beings to behavioral data points harvested for prediction, manipulation, and profit in systems of surveillance capitalism that transcend national boundaries.
Algorithmic Determinism
Decision systems increasingly dictate human experiences—from opportunities seen to content consumed—through opaque processes that perpetuate historical biases, suppress divergent views, and cultivate addictive patterns of interaction, fundamentally limiting human agency and self-determination.
Digital Labor Exploitation
Creators, knowledge workers, service providers, and users across the global economy are systematically denied fair compensation and rights, while platform intermediaries extract disproportionate value through rent-seeking, artificially created scarcity, and exclusionary practices.
Health Data Colonization
Personal medical information is harvested, segregated into proprietary silos, commodified, and weaponized, preventing individuals from controlling their own bodily information while restricting the collective benefits that could arise from privacy-preserving, person-centered health research.
Financial Exclusion
Traditional financial institutions and emerging digital payment systems maintain systems of gatekeeping that perpetuate global inequality, restrict economic opportunity, and subject billions to predatory practices, excessive fees, and arbitrary restrictions on participation.
Cognitive Exploitation
Attention-harvesting business models deliberately engineer addictive patterns, exploit psychological vulnerabilities, and monopolize human awareness, transforming consciousness itself into an extractable resource across cultures and continents.
Environmental Degradation
Unchecked digital growth and artificial cycles of technological obsolescence contribute to resource depletion, e-waste, and carbon emissions, with ecological costs disproportionately borne by vulnerable communities while benefits accrue to the privileged.
Technological Colonialism
Digital infrastructure, platforms, and standards are predominantly designed and controlled by a narrow segment of humanity, imposing values, practices, and systems that marginalize diverse cultural perspectives and reinforce existing power imbalances.
Erosion of Collective Self-Determination
Unaccountable technical systems increasingly determine social outcomes without democratic oversight, transferring governance authority from human communities to proprietary algorithms and the entities that control them.
Universal Principles of Digital Sovereignty
The ten Articles, scoredWe, the united peoples of Earth, hereby establish a new social contract for the digital age, founded upon universal principles of human dignity, shared prosperity, and collective freedom.
Article I — Universal Self-Sovereign Identity (USSI)
Every person, regardless of technological access or expertise, has the inalienable right to a self-sovereign digital identity that they alone control.
Identity systems must be built on open standards and decentralized architectures that ensure privacy, portability, interoperability, and resistance to manipulation or erasure.
Special protections must be established for vulnerable populations, ensuring that identity systems cannot be weaponized against marginalized groups or used for surveillance or control.
What the running system does about it: One limb of three is provable today. The identity is built on open standards and a decentralized architecture: a did:web trust anchor resolves from any machine with no registry in the middle, and the credential format is SD-JWT VC. The limb that matters most is NOT provable — nobody controls an identity here, because no wallet is served and no person holds a credential. The third limb, protections for vulnerable populations, has no implementation at all.
Evidence: /.well-known/did.json
Article II — Data as Personal and Cultural Heritage
Personal data—including expressions, behaviors, biometrics, and created content—constitutes both individual property and collective cultural heritage, requiring nuanced governance.
All data use requires ongoing, informed, purpose-limited, and easily revocable consent, with value from such use flowing equitably to individuals and communities.
Collective governance frameworks must be established for aggregated data that affects entire communities, with Indigenous, traditional, and historically marginalized communities retaining special rights to govern knowledge derived from their members.
What the running system does about it: A signed status list is published and fetchable, which is how a credential stops being valid. Naming that as the Article's consent limb would be wrong: this is ISSUER revocation, not a person withdrawing consent. No consent receipt exists on this cell. The purpose-limitation limb has a real structural answer — SD-JWT VC discloses one claim without the rest — but no credential has been issued, so it is declared and not witnessed.
Evidence: /t/root/status/1
Article III — Knowledge Commons and Creator Justice
All people retain fundamental rights to their creative and intellectual works through transparent, accessible registries and self-executing agreements that cannot be coerced or manipulated.
An Open Knowledge Commons shall protect and nurture humanity's shared intellectual heritage while ensuring that creators receive fair compensation for their contributions.
The right to repair, modify, and truly own digital and physical technologies shall be universal, without artificial restrictions that create waste or limit human ingenuity.
What the running system does about it: Nothing in this system addresses creator rights or a knowledge commons. What would make it true: a credential type for authorship with a public, resolvable registry entry, and no such type exists.
Article IV — Health Sovereignty
Every person's health data belongs to them first, stored securely and accessibly in interoperable formats that they can control, share, or withdraw as needed.
Medical artificial intelligence and data systems must prioritize equity, transparency, and patient agency, with benefits from medical research distributed fairly across all populations.
Indigenous, community, and traditional medical knowledge shall be protected from appropriation while being respectfully integrated into global health knowledge systems with appropriate attribution and compensation.
What the running system does about it: No health credential type exists on this cell and no health data passes through it. What would make the first limb true: a health credential a person holds on their own device, which requires the wallet that does not exist yet.
Article V — Economic Inclusion and Justice
Financial and economic systems must be redesigned to ensure universal access, fair participation, and equitable distribution of value based on genuine contribution rather than privileged position.
Advanced technologies, including decentralized finance and cooperative ownership models, shall democratize economic power and dismantle systems of exclusion.
The authentic sharing economy shall replace extractive platform monopolies, with the value of community-created resources distributed to those who genuinely contribute.
What the running system does about it: This cell moves no money and holds no economic rail. The Article is a commitment of the estate, not a property of this trust plane.
Article VI — Truth, Transparency, and Information Integrity
Information systems must be designed to prioritize truth and human understanding over engagement or profit, with all ranking, recommendation, and amplification algorithms subject to public audit and accountability.
Media ecosystems must support factual integrity, diverse perspectives, and deep context, with economic incentives aligned with truthful information rather than seductive falsehoods.
Education for critical digital literacy shall be a universal right, empowering all people to evaluate information quality, understand technological systems, and participate meaningfully in the digital public sphere.
What the running system does about it: The public-audit limb is honoured, applied to ourselves rather than to a media ecosystem. This system publishes deterministic conformance vectors anyone can recompute offline, a register of its own capabilities INCLUDING the ones that do not work, and a notice on its home page recording a claim it published, measured, found false, and withdrew. There is no ranking or amplification algorithm here to audit, and the media and literacy limbs are outside what a trust plane can honour.
Evidence: /conformance/vectors
Article VII — Algorithmic Justice and Transparency
All automated decision systems affecting human lives must be explainable, accountable, and open to challenge, with clear mechanisms for appeal and redress.
Artificial intelligence systems must be developed with diverse human participation, tested for harmful biases, and deployed only when they demonstrably advance human wellbeing and ecological sustainability.
No autonomous system shall make life-altering decisions without meaningful human oversight and governance, particularly in areas of policing, judicial proceedings, resource allocation, or military applications.
What the running system does about it: No automated decision system runs on this cell, so there is nothing here to explain or appeal. Partner admission is a human decision, and it is recorded in a tamper-evident chain — which is a start on accountability, not a fulfilment of the Article.
Article VIII — Digital Commons and Infrastructure Justice
Essential digital infrastructure shall be recognized as a public utility and human right, with universal access guaranteed regardless of geography, economic status, or political circumstance.
Open protocols, standards, and technologies shall form the backbone of our shared digital world, developed through inclusive multi-stakeholder processes rather than corporate fiat.
The electromagnetic spectrum, satellite orbits, and other limited digital resources shall be managed as common heritage of humanity, with benefits distributed equitably across all peoples.
What the running system does about it: The second limb is honoured and countable. Every protocol on the wire here is a multi-stakeholder standard, not a corporate one — W3C DID Core, IETF RFC 7638 and 9116, OpenID4VCI. And the verification plane requires no authentication at all, by construction: a stranger can check a credential without an account, a key, or our permission. The first and third limbs are not ours to claim.
Evidence: /standards
Article IX — Cognitive Liberty and Attention Rights
Every person possesses an inalienable right to cognitive liberty—to control their attention, protect their mental processes from manipulation, and determine their informational environment.
Digital systems must be designed to respect human cognitive limits, support well-being, and enhance autonomy rather than exploiting psychological vulnerabilities for profit.
Technologies that directly interface with or modify neural processes must adhere to the strictest ethical standards, with special protections against coercion, surveillance, or manipulation of thought.
What the running system does about it: There is no attention surface in this system to honour or violate. The nearest thing this site can offer is negative: no tracker, no analytics script and no third-party font runs on these pages, so reading them is not measured.
Article X — Collective Digital Self-Governance
Power in digital systems must ultimately reside with the people they affect, through participatory governance structures that transcend both corporate and state control.
Technical standards, platform policies, and digital regulations must be developed through inclusive, transparent processes that center the needs of affected communities, especially those historically marginalized.
Digital civic spaces must be protected and nurtured as essential infrastructure for democratic participation, collective problem-solving, and cultural expression.
What the running system does about it: This platform is governed by its owner, not by the people it affects. Saying so plainly is the only honest position available while that is true. The exit is real, though, and it is the closest thing to the Article on offer: an issuer runs under its own domain, so leaving costs one DNS record and no credential stops working.
A Universal Call to Unified Action
We pledge toWithdraw support from exploitative digital systems that commodify human experience, manipulate behavior, or undermine fundamental rights.
Create and support ethical alternatives that embody the principles of human dignity, collective flourishing, and ecological sustainability.
Educate and empower all people—especially youth and marginalized communities—to understand, create, modify, and govern the technologies that shape their lives.
Build solidarity across borders, cultures, and communities to construct a global movement for digital justice and human-centered technology.
Transform governance at all levels to ensure that technological development serves genuine human needs and the common good.
Protect and expand digital commons, ensuring that humanity's shared knowledge and technical infrastructure remains accessible to all.
Demand accountability from powerful technological actors, through regulation, litigation, direct action, and the creation of viable alternatives.
In Witness Whereof
A living compactWe, the sovereign individuals and communities of Earth, affix our names to this living compact, united in our conviction that technology must serve truth, justice, and the boundless potential of human creativity and connection.
This Declaration stands as an invitation to all people, communities, organizations, and institutions who share its vision to join in writing the next chapter of our shared digital future—one founded on dignity, freedom, and a commitment to the flourishing of all life on this planet.
Inaugurated by the Free Peoples of the Digital Commons, July 4th, 2025. To be continuously expanded through the ongoing participation of all who share its principles.
Epilogue
This Declaration shall be preserved in multiple forms—on decentralized digital ledgers, in printed documents, and in the living practices of communities worldwide. It stands not as a fixed text but as a living document that will evolve through the wisdom, experience, and participation of diverse peoples across our planet.
Inspired by the universal human yearning for freedom, the rich traditions of commons governance from cultures worldwide, and the boundless possibility of creating technologies that truly serve humanity and the web of life that sustains us all.
Inspired by the United States Declaration of Independence, the principles of Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI), and the unyielding pursuit of human dignity.
© Jonatan Schmidt 2025
The honest case against this whole idea
From the author's own essayThese are not objections we went looking for in order to knock down. They are the critiques Jonatan Schmidt published himself, in Self-Sovereign Identity: The Foundation of Digital Liberation (May 2025), and they are reproduced because a page that only argues its own side is not worth reading.
Digital divide
Without careful implementation, SSI could exacerbate existing inequalities, creating a two-tier system where those with access to technology enjoy greater sovereignty while others are further marginalized.
Individualism critique
SSI's emphasis on individual control reflects Western individualist values that may not resonate in more communal cultures, where identity is understood as inherently relational and collective.
Technological solutionism
SSI may overemphasize technical fixes for what are fundamentally social and political problems of power and inequality.
Corporate co-option
Corporate interests might capture SSI implementation, creating nominally “self-sovereign” systems that perpetuate existing power dynamics under a veneer of user control.
Governance questions
While SSI reduces dependence on centralized authorities for day-to-day operations, questions remain about who governs the protocols, standards, and infrastructure underlying SSI systems.
State surveillance
While SSI technically enables greater privacy, some fear that states might mandate backdoors or otherwise undermine self-sovereignty through regulatory requirements or technical interventions.
What that premise has actually produced so far, one row at a time, with an endpoint against each: /capabilities.
Ask this site
Try:
- IssuerSigns a claim about you. Learns nothing afterwards.
- Holder — youKeeps it. Chooses what to show, and to whom.
- VerifierChecks the signature and the status. Does not call the issuer.
The arrow that is missing is the one that matters: there is none from the verifier back to the issuer, which is why the issuer cannot see where you went.
- Read the token and the key it names.
- Resolve the issuer’s key document.
- Recompute that key’s thumbprint and compare it to the name in the token.
- Verify the signature, using the algorithm the token itself declares.
Every step is arithmetic the receiving party performs. None of it asks the issuer to vouch for the issuer.
ExampleA credential with four claims, of which two are sent:
| Claim | Value | Sent? |
|---|---|---|
| given_name | Ada | sent |
| date_of_birth | 1970-01-01 | withheld |
| over_18 | true | sent |
| address | … | withheld |
The issuer’s signature still verifies over the two that were sent, because the two that were not are committed to as salted digests rather than as values.
Everything this search can see — all 27 pages, and what each one claims
- ORBIS.IDYour identity belongs to you. Right now, it belongs to everyone else.Every time you sign up for something, you hand over a copy of yourself — a photo of your passport, a scan of your face, your date of birth. Those copies pile upSections: The grievance, the Article, and the proof · The problem, in one sentence you already know · Five promises — and what each one actually means · Three people, one seal, no copies · The screen where you decide · What we can see, and what we cannot
- Declaration of Digital IndependenceUniversal Declaration of Digital Independence and Human Digital RightsThe founding document of this estate, written by Jonatan Schmidt and published here unedited. Next to each Article is what the running system actually does abouSections: Universal Grievances Against Digital Oppression · Universal Principles of Digital Sovereignty · A Universal Call to Unified Action · In Witness Whereof · The honest case against this whole idea
- The Trust FabricTrust, woven in.The trust fabric for the real economy — it turns everyday life into proof you own . An issuer signs a statement, a holder keeps it and decides who sees it, and Sections: Split trust into three roles — never merge them. · A bill becomes proof. Proof becomes credit. · Honesty is the architecture. · The fabric cannot be retrofitted. · Three converging markets — one regulatory clock. · The lines the product already says for itself.
- Demo consoleThe only demo here is the real thing.There is no recorded walkthrough on this page, no simulated data and no screenshot of a product. There is a running trust plane and the commands that talk to itSections: 01 · The trust anchor · 02 · What this issuer issues · 03 · Is it healthy right now · 04 · Revocation, signed · 05 · Prove it against the published conformance vectors · Two lists, same page, same weight
- DocumentationGenerated from the route table, so it cannot drift.The wire contract is derived from the live routing table on every request. The document and the server cannot disagree, because one is made out of the other.Sections: Start here · The full contract
- DevelopersEverything below is a live response.Not documentation of an intended one. Five commands, no account, no API key, no sales call. Run them before you decide whether to keep reading.Sections: 01 · The trust anchor · 02 · Issuer metadata · 03 · The credential shape · 04 · Conformance vectors — check your implementation, not ours · 05 · Revocation, signed · Readiness that reports the hardware
- CapabilitiesEvery claim, its real state, and the proof.25 entries: 14 live · 1 partial · 1 planned · 9 not yet. Each one was checked against the cell serving this page. Almost nobody in this industry publishes the rSections: What the four words mean · Identity · Issuance · Operations · Verification · Standards
- StandardsOne row per standard. Including the ones we fail.5 live · 4 partial · 0 planned · 3 not yet. Every row states what the standard demands , what this cell actually does, and the artefact that settles it. Two rowSections: What the four words mean · Credential formats, as their own register · Why every row carries a state
- RegulationsThe posture, in the same discipline.Conformant where it is true, planned where it is not yet, and never silent about the difference. Data minimisation here is a property of the credential format, Sections: Data minimisation, enforced by cryptography · What the four words mean · Compliance and security capabilities · Security · Compliance · Certification status, stated once and plainly
- For peopleThe answer is smaller than the question.You photographed your passport again this month. Someone needed to know one thing about you. They now hold your name, your face, your address and your date of bSections: Prove the fact. Keep everything else. · What changes for you · What is real today, and what is not · If you are here for someone else
- For businessYour own issuer. Your own domain.You mint your own credential types under your own domain. Your members hold them. Your counterparties check them offline, against a public key, with nothing to Sections: You are not early. The deadlines already exist. · The live example is not a mock · What a buyer actually asks · Two lists, same page, same weight · Getting started
- For citiesA city is a tenant, with its own key.Resident credentials a city issues under its own did:web , checked by services across the city with no shared resident database in the middle — because the checSections: Why the architecture is not city-specific · What a city actually gets from this · Two lists, same page, same weight
- For governmentTwo questions, both answered with endpoints.What does it conform to, and what is provable without taking our word for it. Everything below links the artefact that settles it — a document you fetch, a fileSections: The property that comes before everything else · Conformance, one row per standard · Accountability · Two lists, same page, same weight
- PartnersFour roles, and what each one runs.Issuer partners mint their own types under their own tenant. Relying parties verify against the trust anchor. Wallet partners hold on a person's behalf. Data paSections: A page each, with its own evidence · How intake works, and what it costs you · Two lists, same page, same weight
- Apply as a partnerApply, and here is exactly what happens next.The intake is a public, rate-limited endpoint you can call right now. What happens after it is a person, not a pipeline, and this page says which steps are whicSections: Step 1 · Call the intake · Do it here · What each step actually is · What we do with what you send
- Application statusWhere your application is, without asking us.A public endpoint answers with the state of an application you hold the id for. No account, no sign-in, no email thread.Sections: Ask it directly · Check it here · What the states mean
- Issuer partnersYour own key, your own domain, your own exit.An issuer partner runs a tenant with its own did:web , its own signing key, its own status list and its own credential types. The credentials you mint are verifSections: What you actually get, and you can look at all of it now · The formats, as a register · The exit, stated before you sign anything · Two lists, same page, same weight
- Relying-party partnersVerification takes no key. Count the routes.There is nothing to buy and nothing to sign up for on the verifying side. The verification plane takes no authentication at all, and that is a structural properSections: Count it yourself · What you integrate: three fetches · Test your verifier against ours, offline · What is not proved yet, on the record
- Wallet partnersWhat a wallet has to speak to interoperate.The protocols, the format, and the key custody we expect. And the thing no other page in this industry will tell you: nothing has ever completed this flow againSections: The discovery surface, live now · What we expect of you, and what you can expect of us · Aligned with HAIP 1.0
- Data partnersA signed contract, an audit chain, and a short list.A data partner exchanges verified attributes under a signed agreement, with every exchange recorded in a tamper-evident chain. It is also the least built of theSections: What is real underneath · Compliance · What a data partner would get and give · If you want to be first
- Verify with ORBISThe plane designed to survive everything else being down.Verification needs no signing key, no issuer identity and no vault — a cell can be configured for verification alone. It also needs no permission: 107 of this cSections: Three fetches, no account · The honest line between implemented and witnessed · Two lists, same page, same weight
- The clock — the deadlines, counted liveEvery date on this page was set by a parliament, not by us.This is not a roadmap. It is a list of legal instruments with dates attached, and the first one has already gone. Nothing below is written down and left to rot:Sections: The instruments, in the order they bite · Switzerland, and what it actually tells you · What “certified” currently means in this field · To a government reading this · To the people building the same thing · To the person these deadlines are actually about
- How ORBIS compares — and where it loses6 axes. 2 no established vendor holds. 3 we do not hold ourselves.Dozens of vendors sell pieces of this. The founding brief compared fourteen of them across six capabilities and concluded that no competitor held more than threSections: The matrix · Every axis, and how to check it · The discovery probe · What can be proved right now · What we withdrew · The honest gaps
- Your accountAn account with no password to steal.Not a row in our database with your email on it. An ORBIS.ID account is a key , and the half that matters is designed to be born on your own device and never seSections: What an account actually is · How you get one · What the account can do · How to leave with everything · If you are not here as a person
- For your organizationYour own issuer identity — and your own way out.An organization on ORBIS is not an account on our platform. It is a tenant with its own web identity, its own signing key, its own revocation list and its own cSections: What your organization becomes · What onboarding actually involves · What it does not require · Three pages, one for each question · The other two doors
- The operator back officeThe operator console, and the door that will not open yet.Issuance, revocation, the trust registry, the approvals plane, the audit chain and the compliance desk — 195 operator-authenticated operations , the largest surSections: What the back office does · The door, and why it is shut · How an operator signs in · Count it yourself · The other two doors
- Network operations centreEvery panel on this page is a reading your own browser just took.The trust chain resolved live, the revocation field decoded from the signed list, the audit hash chain recomputed link by link, and this cell’s latency measuredSections: The chain that draws itself as it proves itself. · Tamper-evident, and you are welcome to try. · The finding this page would rather report than hide. · What an operator commands, counted from the wire. · Stated here rather than found later.
The words, in plain language — 11 terms, each naming the specification it glosses
- Verifiable credential
- Also searched as: verifiable credential, vc, credential, digital credential, what is a credential, certificate
- A set of claims about someone, signed by whoever issued them. The signature is what makes it verifiable: whoever receives it can prove it has not been altered and can name the key that signed it, without calling the issuer to ask. It is not a login and not a row in somebody’s database — it is a document the subject holds and presents.
- Gloss of W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model 2.0. The concrete format on this cell is SD-JWT VC (IETF). This site’s own claim: /capabilities · served by this cell: /manifest
- Issuer, holder, verifier
- Also searched as: issuer, holder, verifier, roles, who is the issuer, difference between issuer and verifier, three roles, relying party
- Three roles, separated on purpose. The ISSUER signs a claim about you. The HOLDER — you — keeps it and decides who sees it. The VERIFIER checks the signature and the status. Because the verifier does not have to call the issuer to do that check, the issuer does not learn where you used the credential. That separation is the entire point of the model; collapse it and you have rebuilt a login provider.
- Gloss of W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model 2.0, which defines these three roles. This site’s own claim: /trust-fabric
- The trust chain
- Also searched as: trust chain, how do i know, real, genuine, authentic, fake, forged, tampered, how is it verified, verification, verify, verified, signature, signed, trust anchor, check, checked, proof, prove
- Checking a credential is four steps, in order, and every one of them can be done by the party receiving it. Read the token and the key it names. Resolve the issuer’s key document. Recompute that key’s thumbprint and compare it to the name in the token. Verify the signature with the algorithm the token itself declares. Nothing in that sequence requires trusting the issuer’s word about the issuer.
- Gloss of RFC 7638 (JWK thumbprint), RFC 7515 (JWS), W3C DID Core for resolving the key. This site’s own claim: /trust-fabric · served by this cell: /.well-known/did.json · /conformance/vectors
- Selective disclosure
- Also searched as: selective disclosure, sd-jwt, sd jwt, withhold, hide claims, privacy, share less, minimum disclosure, only show my age, zero knowledge
- Handing over some claims and withholding others without invalidating the issuer’s signature. Each claim is committed to in the signed payload as a salted hash rather than as the value itself; you send only the disclosures you choose, and the receiver recomputes the digests of what you actually sent. Withholding a claim is therefore not an act of trust or of policy — the arithmetic simply does not contain it.
- Gloss of IETF SD-JWT and SD-JWT VC. This site’s own claim: /regulations
- Revocation and status
- Also searched as: revocation, revoked, status list, expired, cancel a credential, withdraw, still valid, status
- A credential can be withdrawn after it is issued, so a verifier needs a way to ask whether this one still stands. A status list answers that as one bit per credential in a single compressed, signed document: the verifier fetches the whole list and reads its own bit, so the issuer never learns which credential was being asked about. The privacy property comes from the shape of the answer, not from a promise.
- Gloss of IETF Token Status List. This site’s own claim: /trust-fabric · served by this cell: /t/root/status/1
- DID — decentralized identifier
- Also searched as: did, decentralized identifier, did:web, did web, identifier, who signed it, public key
- An identifier that resolves to a document containing public keys. The method decides how that resolution happens. did:web makes the identifier a domain name and serves the document at a well-known path, so resolving it is an ordinary HTTPS fetch anyone can perform and nobody needs a ledger, a token or a permissioned network to complete.
- Gloss of W3C DID Core 1.0; method did:web. This site’s own claim: /standards · served by this cell: /.well-known/did.json · /t/root/did.json
- How a credential reaches a wallet
- Also searched as: oid4vci, issuance, issue, get a credential, openid4vci, how do i receive, onboarding a credential
- The protocol a wallet uses to collect a credential from an issuer: the wallet discovers what the issuer offers from a well-known metadata document, obtains authorization, and requests the credential over an ordinary OAuth-shaped exchange. Being ordinary is the feature — it means an issuer does not need a bespoke wallet and a wallet does not need a bespoke issuer.
- Gloss of OpenID for Verifiable Credential Issuance (OpenID4VCI). This site’s own claim: /standards · served by this cell: /.well-known/openid-credential-issuer · /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server
- How a credential is presented
- Also searched as: oid4vp, presentation, present, show a credential, openid4vp, dcql, prove something, log in with a credential
- The protocol a verifier uses to ask for credentials and a wallet uses to answer. The verifier states what it needs as a query rather than naming a provider, and the wallet responds with a presentation bound to that specific request — so a captured answer cannot be replayed at a different verifier.
- Gloss of OpenID for Verifiable Presentations (OpenID4VP), with DCQL for the query. This site’s own claim: /standards
- Wallet
- Also searched as: wallet, where is it stored, app, phone, my credentials, hold
- The software the holder keeps credentials in, and the place the holder’s keys are created and stay. The property that matters is not the interface: it is that the private key is generated on the device and never leaves it, because a key held by the provider makes the provider the holder no matter what the screen says.
- Gloss of No single specification; the relevant ones are OpenID4VCI/VP for the protocols and the platform key stores for custody. This site’s own claim: /for-people
- What this site is
- Also searched as: orbis, what is orbis, what does this do, what is this, the platform, product, what do you do, help
- This surface will not summarise the product for you, because a summary is exactly the kind of claim this site refuses to make without a receipt. What it will do is hand you the register: the capability page states what is live, what is partial and what is not built, each one linked to the endpoint that proves it.
- Gloss of Not a specification — a register. This site’s own claim: /capabilities · served by this cell: /openapi.json · /build
- The standards
- Also searched as: standards, specifications, specs, interoperable, eidas, regulation, compliance, conformance
- Verifiable credentials are not one standard but a stack: a data model, a serialization, a protocol to issue, a protocol to present, a way to identify keys and a way to publish status. Interoperability claims are only meaningful per layer, which is why a page that claims the whole stack at once is telling you nothing.
- Gloss of W3C VC 2.0, IETF SD-JWT VC, OpenID4VCI/VP, W3C DID Core, IETF Token Status List. This site’s own claim: /standards · served by this cell: /conformance/vectors