- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:53:52 -0500
- To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 1:37 AM Anders Rundgren wrote: > So how could this standard pass you may [rightfully] wonder? No comment. :P > Well, the > SPC API does not handle card data itself; it is supposed to have been > dealt with in a preceding non-standardized step. There are benefits to big players when they do and manage the onboarding. :) > For payments though, the core problem is that it > could radically affect business models and that's a BIG NO-NO. Yes, can you imagine what it would be like if /any/ digital wallet could onboard payment instruments from banks and move to a fully tokenized, more decentralized model? I mean, a payment instrument is effectively a Verifiable Credential (decentralized bank account information) with a Verifiable Presentation digital signature taking the place of CHIP+PIN... and routing being done over the Internet with near immediate clearing. ... but the number of players in the ecosystem this could disrupt is so large that the payments industry will fight it, tooth and claw. > There is a risk that this may turn out to be pretty universal. Yes, as we see with the current scuffle over "national identity cards", ISO mDL, and Verifiable Credentials. I expect one key difference here is that governments (largely) issue foundational identity documents, not banks, and so there is much more of a public institution having a moral authority to effectuate the will of the people than with payments. It's an interesting perspective, Anders... I think your concern is valid. -- manu -- Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021) https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
Received on Monday, 20 February 2023 16:54:41 UTC