-
@ Tim Bouma
2025-03-13 09:27:25
The Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) movement began as a decentralized, user-controlled approach to digital identity. It aimed to reduce reliance on centralized authorities, allowing individuals to control their own identity credentials without constant oversight from governments or corporations. However, over time, the movement was co-opted into supporting state-sponsored digital identity systems, often reinforcing the very structures it originally sought to disrupt.
The Original Vision of SSI
The core idea behind SSI was to create an identity model where individuals could:
• Own and control their identity credentials without being dependent on a central authority.
• Use cryptographic proofs to verify identity claims in a peer-to-peer manner, rather than relying on centralized databases.
• Minimize surveillance and data collection, reducing the ability of governments and corporations to track identity usage.
This vision was implemented using the Issuer-Holder-Verifier model, where:
• An Issuer (such as a university or employer) provides credentials to an individual.
• The Holder (the user) stores and manages these credentials.
• A Verifier (such as an employer or service provider) checks the credentials without directly involving the issuer.
How Governments Co-Opted SSI
Despite its decentralized aspirations, SSI was gradually absorbed into government-controlled digital identity initiatives. This happened through several key mechanisms:
1. Governments Became the Primary Issuers of Identity
While SSI was designed to support a broad ecosystem of credential issuers (such as schools, employers, or banks), governments positioned themselves as the foundational issuers of identity. In many jurisdictions, state-issued credentials (such as digital passports, driver’s licenses, and national IDs) became the prerequisite for obtaining other verifiable credentials. This effectively made governments the gatekeepers of the SSI ecosystem.
2. Mandatory Identity Registration and Compliance
Many government-backed digital identity initiatives required individuals to obtain state-approved SSI credentials to access basic services. Instead of allowing voluntary, decentralized identity creation, states mandated compliance with their digital ID frameworks, turning SSI into just another state-controlled identity system.
3. Surveillance and Revocation Mechanisms
One of the original promises of SSI was that individuals could present identity proofs without revealing unnecessary personal data. However, state-backed implementations often introduced features that allowed governments to:
• Track when and where credentials were used.
• Implement revocation mechanisms, ensuring that individuals could be deplatformed or excluded from services if their credentials were revoked.
• Require verifiers to check identity credentials against government databases, reintroducing centralized control.
4. Legal and Regulatory Capture
As governments embraced digital identity systems, they introduced laws requiring businesses and institutions to accept only government-approved digital credentials. This effectively outlawed alternative self-sovereign identity models that operated outside state control.
5. Alignment with Global Digital Identity Initiatives
Organizations like the EU, World Economic Forum (WEF), and United Nations promoted digital identity frameworks that adopted SSI terminology while maintaining government and corporate control. Initiatives like the EU Digital Identity Wallet and India’s Aadhaar-linked digital identity expansion use the same issuer-holder-verifier structure but ensure that foundational identity issuance is tightly controlled by the state.
The Inevitable Shift from Self-Sovereign to State-Sanctioned Identity
Originally, SSI was meant to liberate individuals from centralized control, but in practice, it became a way for governments to modernize identity systems while retaining ultimate authority. What was once a movement about decentralization and privacy has now been largely absorbed into state-sponsored digital identity frameworks that reinforce KYC (Know Your Customer), AML (Anti-Money Laundering), and surveillance regimes.
Conclusion: The Illusion of Decentralization
While SSI frameworks still maintain some elements of user control, the movement has largely shifted toward a state-controlled identity paradigm where:
• Governments issue and regulate digital identity credentials.
• Individuals must use government-approved identity systems to access key services.
• Privacy protections and decentralization are often weakened or removed under the guise of security and compliance.
The co-option of SSI into state-sponsored digital identity models highlights a fundamental reality: governments will always seek to maintain control over identity systems, even when using decentralized-sounding frameworks. For those seeking true self-sovereign identity, the challenge now is to develop alternative systems that resist state control while remaining practically usable in an increasingly regulated digital world.