Decentralized identity (DID)

Decentralized identity (DID) is an approach where the user owns their digital identity themselves: the identifier and verifiable credentials are controlled by cryptographic keys rather than stored under one platform's full control. The idea is to give a person control over their data and a portable identity. Note: this catalog entry duplicates the DID service (1085); the content is identical, see 1085 as the primary. Honestly about immaturity, this is key: DID is a cutting-edge but still immature field. Standards (DID methods, verifiable credentials) develop and change, there are many incompatible implementations, real support from services is narrow — few accept DID for login/verification. Implementing DID now means working with a moving, niche technology. We honestly warn about this. Honestly about responsibility for keys, this is critical: control over identity = control over keys. Losing the key = losing access to the identity without 'recover via support'. For an ordinary user this is a serious barrier; recovery mechanisms (social recovery) with their own trade-offs are needed. Honestly about 'not for most': for the vast majority of ordinary applications the usual authentication (email, OAuth, phone) is simpler, more mature, more convenient and secure enough. DID is justified where a portable, platform-independent identity or verifiable credentials between organizations are genuinely needed — niche scenarios. Dragging DID into an ordinary product is over-engineering. Honestly about 'not a privacy panacea': DID gives more control over data disclosure but does not make the system private automatically; public blockchain components can, conversely, reveal information. Honestly about the duplicate: since this service repeats 1085, we honestly note this and do not create confusion — the implementation is the same. Honestly about the effect: for genuine DID scenarios it gives the user control over identity and portability, but it is an immature niche technology with serious responsibility for keys. Honestly about access: a real need and readiness for immaturity are required. An important boundary: this is DID (= 1085); ordinary authentication — the standard; Web3 login — 1078; SSI (self-sovereign identity) — 1139; soulbound — 1086. The base price starts from 90,000 ₽ (depends on the scenario).

• A portable identity not tied to one platform is needed.
• Verifiable credentials between organizations are needed.
• You want DID for an ordinary product — but it is immature over-engineering.
• It is not accounted for that losing the key = losing the identity without recovery.

• DID implementation for a scenario (identifiers, verifiable credentials) — see 1085
• An honest assessment: is DID needed or is ordinary authentication enough
• Recovery/social recovery mechanisms (with trade-offs)
• Accounting for standards immaturity and the obsolescence risk
• Honest boundaries (immature/niche; responsibility for keys; key loss is unrecoverable; not a privacy panacea; not for most; duplicates 1085)
• A link with Web3 login (1078) and SSI (1139)
• Documentation and handover
• Review with you

• Self-sovereign identity for a real DID scenario
• User control over data disclosure (with caveats)
• An honest assessment: for an ordinary product ordinary authentication is better
• Honest boundaries (immaturity; responsibility for keys; not a privacy panacea; niche; = 1085)

• We assess the scenario: is DID needed or is ordinary authentication enough
• We implement DID/credentials with recovery, accounting for immaturity
• We honestly set boundaries (keys, maturity, the 1085 duplicate) and hand over to you

• Does my application need DID instead of ordinary login?

  For most — no, honestly: for ordinary applications the usual authentication (email, OAuth, phone) is simpler, more mature and secure enough. DID is an immature, niche technology; in an ordinary product it is over-engineering. It is justified only where a portable, platform-independent identity or verifiable credentials between organizations are genuinely needed. We will honestly assess whether it is your case (and account for this being a duplicate of service 1085).

• Is DID production-ready and widely supported?

  Honestly: it is a cutting-edge but still immature field. Standards (DID methods, verifiable credentials) change, implementations are incompatible, real support from services is narrow — few accept DID for login/verification. There is a risk of the chosen stack becoming outdated. We honestly warn about the immaturity and niche nature rather than pass DID off as a ready, mature standard.

• What if the user loses the DID key?

  This is a serious risk, honestly: control over identity = control over keys. Losing the key = losing access to the identity without 'recover via support'. For an ordinary user this is a barrier. Social recovery can be added, but it has its own trade-offs. We honestly build in this responsibility for keys rather than pass DID off as a carefree identity.