Decentralized identity (DID)

Decentralized identity (DID, decentralized identity / self-sovereign identity) is an approach where the user owns their digital identity themselves: their identifier and verifiable credentials (claims) are controlled by cryptographic keys rather than stored under one platform's full control (like the usual 'sign in with X'). The idea is to give a person control over their data and a portable identity. Honestly about immaturity, this is key: DID is largely a cutting-edge but still immature field. Standards (DID methods, verifiable credentials) keep developing and changing, there are many incompatible implementations, and real support from services is narrow — few actually accept DID for login or verification. Implementing DID now means working with a moving, niche technology with the risk that the chosen stack becomes outdated. We honestly warn about this. Honestly about responsibility for keys, this is critical: in DID control over identity = control over keys. This gives independence but also full responsibility: losing the key means losing access to your identity without 'recover via support'. For an ordinary user this is a serious risk and barrier that must be honestly accounted for (recovery mechanisms, social recovery — with their own trade-offs). Honestly about 'not for most products': 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 the user more control over what data they disclose, but by itself does not make the system private or secure automatically — that depends on the implementation, and public blockchain components can, conversely, reveal information. 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 for self-sovereign identity, readiness for immaturity are needed. An important boundary: this is DID; ordinary authentication — the standard for most; Web3 login (wallet login) — 1078; soulbound tokens — 1086. The base price starts from 90,000 ₽ (depends on the scenario and standards).

• 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 specific scenario (identifiers, verifiable credentials)
• An honest assessment: is DID needed or is ordinary authentication enough
• Recovery/social recovery mechanisms (with honest trade-offs)
• Accounting for standards immaturity and the risk of stack obsolescence
• Honest boundaries (immature/niche technology; responsibility for keys; key loss is unrecoverable; not a privacy panacea; not for most)
• A link with Web3 login (1078) where appropriate
• 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)

• We assess the scenario: is DID needed or is ordinary authentication enough
• We implement DID/credentials with recovery mechanisms, accounting for immaturity
• We honestly set boundaries (keys, maturity, privacy) 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, more convenient and secure enough. DID is an immature, niche technology; implementing it in an ordinary product is over-engineering. It is justified where a portable, platform-independent identity or verifiable credentials between organizations are genuinely needed. We will honestly assess whether it is your case rather than implement DID 'for modernity'.

• Is DID production-ready and widely supported?

  Honestly: it is largely a cutting-edge but still immature field. Standards (DID methods, verifiable credentials) keep changing, implementations are incompatible, and real support from services is narrow — few accept DID for login/verification. There is a risk the chosen stack becomes 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 key to their DID?

  Honestly, this is a serious risk: in DID control over identity = control over keys. Losing the key means losing access to your identity without 'recover via support'. For an ordinary user this is a barrier. Recovery mechanisms (e.g. social recovery) can be added, but they have their own trade-offs. We honestly build in this responsibility for keys rather than pass DID off as a carefree identity.