W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > December 2018

Re: Ideas about the monetization of self-sovereign identity business

From: Gilang Bhagaskara <gilang@idblockchain.network>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 13:28:30 +0700
Message-ID: <CABN8GgYx1evsbsPAf+3UKigK6M+bYDmyRGZJHWhfN5SMZ0DBDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nathan Aw <nathan.mk.aw@gmail.com>
Cc: "Kevin O'Brien" <kevin@kiva.org>, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Nathan,
Good to see you here. I believe I have reached out to you on Telegram a
while ago ;)

This could be a start for what you mentioned as pan-ASEAN identity
platform. Of course this can evolve from a consortium model to an
open/public model. Then the concern will be how to maintain a certain
degree of openness and how the business model can still sustain. Maybe a
public network with token model can be a solution, where members can join
and vote using the tokens?

Kevin,

Interesting point of view on the non-profit approach. I believe the goals
are different, as probably a business-driven approach is better suited in
my society (Indonesia, SE Asia) where the government trust is low and the
demand from the industry is high, *and* the market size is ridiculously
high. I'm talking about a country with 4th largest population in the world
who are just recovering from a 15billion USD e-citizen identity corruption
case. This I believe encourages business people to solve the problem,
whether the the goal is to gain profit or not.

Good points on the perceived costs; Like you, so far I have only found
legal and fraud resolution cases as the other perceived costs. There needs
further study though, on how much the consortium members will need to
invest and how long it can reach BEP. As long as the BEP is not quickly
reached, then this consortium model will be difficult to execute.


On Fri, Dec 7, 2018, 12:59 PM Nathan Aw <nathan.mk.aw@gmail.com wrote:

> Very excellent concept -- think we need sufficient nodes to gain
> credenence. I
> E., beyond the government and consortium members.
>
> Am keen to explore in depth and start building
>
> Nathan Aw
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, 02:18 Kevin O'Brien <kevin@kiva.org wrote:
>
>> I like the concept, thanks for sharing.
>>
>> One thing I've wondered is where the perceived costs are in such a
>> system, thus leading to a need to monetize at all, but that comes from my
>> non-profit perspective.
>>
>> In our case, we could have volunteers running nodes. However, we'd likely
>> need some paid folks to handle recovery / fraud resolution cases.
>>
>> Have others thought about where the main costs are (asides ongoing
>> development costs of the underlying tech) ?
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:09 AM Gilang Bhagaskara
>> <gilang@idblockchain.network> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, this is my first time posting here, I joined hoping to learn and
>>> contribute to this group. I'm relatively new to decentralized identities
>>> and self sovereignty, so I hope that the topic I am bringing up is not too
>>> far from the ideals and goals of this group.
>>>
>>> I want to share a concept design where a business running self-sovereign
>>> identity services can monetize, with the following diagram as an
>>> explanation. (sorry if it looks ugly)
>>>
>>> [image: image.png]
>>> (use https://snag.gy/JB9SNa.jpg if picture is not available)
>>>
>>> Basically the business will be supported by a consortium of companies
>>> running blockchain nodes, where the SSI company will channel its profit to
>>> the consortium members.
>>>
>>>    1. Main source of income is from companies utilizing SSI services
>>>    and paying yearly subscriber fee for their users (in USD)
>>>    2. Government bodies can use the services with a discounted rate, up
>>>    to 100% for identity issuer
>>>    3. 50% of the profit the company receives is distributed among
>>>    consortium members
>>>    4. Portions received by consortium members is different depending on
>>>    the deal with the SSI company
>>>    5. Consortium members can also utilize the services for their
>>>    business, converting the profit sharing into discount rate for subscription
>>>    fee if the value is still viable
>>>    6. Government can join consortium, also receiving the profit sharing
>>>    7. Government (or other companies) can give grant to the ecosystem,
>>>    either directly to the SSI company or to the consortium
>>>
>>> What do you think? Has this concept been realized before? What are the
>>> pros and cons of this concept? Thoughts and questions are welcome.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Gilang
>>>
>>


image.png
(image/png attachment: image.png)

Received on Friday, 7 December 2018 06:29:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 7 December 2018 06:29:11 UTC