Making the case for decentralized identity solutions

Decentralized identity solutions face an uphill battle. First, they have to explain the substance of their product as well as its utility, and then contextualize it in the face of shifting technological and financial trends.

The path to letting these solutions scale will require a delicate balance: outlining the threat that consumers and systems face on the one hand, without resorting to fear mongering on the other.

Balancing truth and feeling

The public has a need to understand the stakes involved in rolling out decentralized identity solutions. In particular, that the uptick in fraud that they’ve experienced—compromised credit cards, hacked accounts, and other episodes—is a systemic phenomenon.

But tone and delivery matter. This reality has to be shared in measured terms, explaining personal and aggregate costs without fear mongering. These identity solutions are part of a larger effort to counter fraud and cyber threats, and require time to successfully be rolled out on a massive scale.

Explaining built-in privacy

The public pitch for decentralized identity solutions should anticipate stringent pushback from privacy advocates and other groups. Why should the private sector build out identity solutions, this thinking goes, when we already have them in the form of passports, drivers licenses, and other IDs? What data will these solutions collect?

Private-sector players should have clear answers to these questions. Outlining the data protection measures in place, such as the inherent security and privacy of decentralized infrastructure, can help assuage public hesitation and convert the general public to more secure identity solutions.

Outlining mechanics

Without compromising proprietary information, competing solutions may see benefit from explaining the design of their product. The public lacks an understanding of decentralized technologies; offering accessible primers on what decentralized products can do can help establish brand recognition as well as public interest in a provider’s solution over others.