Re: Wallet segmentation question for our LER Ecosystem SmartReport

Hi Manu,

re: “Wallet may be a tricky/misused term in edu but adding in a new term with the risk of legitimizing the principles of VCs, doesn’t seem like a great move to me.”

I’ll provide some more context to explain the above: In edu there are web apps that are called “wallets” that aren’t VC wallets. It’s been a struggle to explain the differences between those centralized apps and VC wallets and the differences between hosted and portable digital credentials. This has contributed to a learning curve but we’ve started making progress in the differentiation especially because Open Badges 3.0 is final and those apps are starting to adapt.

My statement above was addressing the term “wallet” that is already misunderstood/misused and another term called “On Platform Credential Management Tools” adds further complexity because then we have backpacks, centralized wallets, decentralized wallets, and then On Platform Credential Management Tools too. It adds to the confusion that already exists.

Ian, in discussions you & I have had, you mentioned that some of the feedback you’ve received outside of this thread is to not explain the difference between Open Badges 2.0 & 3.0 but I don’t see how you can avoid that because “On Platform Credential Management Tools” seems to equal Open Badges 2.0. So how about just calling them Open Badges 2.0 platforms? It’s a little bit of a simplification because some of these platforms are starting to offer 3.0 on top of 2.0 but next year, it will look different and that could be addressed then.

Manu – I 100% agree with your comments about vendor lock. And also concerned about closed ecosystems using SD-JWT VC and claiming to be VCs – we have those developing in edu too.

What I’ve noticed in edu is that portability and privacy is challenging existing business models (vendor lock)– and totally get that. But from my perspective (and the DCC’s), this is the paradigm shift we are working towards. It would be better if we can transparently explain the state of the ecosystem including the technical ramifications so that we can address them versus avoiding them and explore sustainability and profitability.

(Adding vc-edu mailing list back to this thread).

Thanks,

K.


From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Monday, January 6, 2025 at 9:52 AM
To: Kerri Lemoie <klemoie@mit.edu>
Cc: Ian Davidson <ian@idatafy.com>, Deb Everhart <deverhart@credentialengine.org>, Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net>, Phillip D. Long <phil@rhzconsulting.com>, Kate Giovacchini <kate.giovacchini@asu.edu>, Taylor Kendal <taylor@learningeconomy.io>, chris purifoy <chris@learningeconomy.io>
Subject: Re: Wallet segmentation question for our LER Ecosystem SmartReport
On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 9:43 AM Kerri Lemoie <klemoie@mit.edu> wrote:
> I have critical questions about issuing platforms serving “On Platform Credential Management Tools”: What about learner privacy, the concept of not phoning home, and access to credentials (portability)? These are the foundational principle of W3C Verifiable Credentials and the work of VC-EDU.

Hmm, that's a great point Kerri. I had presumed that the "On Platform
Credential Management Tools" allowed for full portability and fought
back against vendor lock. If they don't, that's a critical difference
to point out. I have seen organizations using VCs and mDL in
vendor-lock settings and that is harmful to the ecosystem long-term.
If we end up just creating another vendor-lock ecosystem, we've lost
one of the biggest benefits of VC's data portability goals.

> Why bother with Open Badges 3.0 if they are going to be stored and tracked just like old badges? Are we saying that “On Platform Credential Management Tools” are not issuing VCs/Open Badges 3.0? If so, let’s just call that out so that the community understands what the differences are in functionality and approaches to trustworthiness.

The other concern that is in the back of my mind is the re-purposing
of the VC branding to promote closed ecosystem solutions. For example,
SD-JWT VC is definitely NOT a W3C VC, but that community has (somewhat
successfully) repurposed the brand name to sell closed ecosystem
solutions.

> Wallet may be a tricky/misused term in edu but adding in a new term with the risk of legitimizing the principles of VCs, doesn’t seem like a great move to me.

I don't quite understand the comment above. Do you mean that we could
further confuse things by adding yet another term? Or do you mean that
we could legitimize vendor-lock and tracking by opening up the
definition? For example, we allowed fully centralized DID Methods in
the DID Method registry and (rightly) drew criticism for doing so.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/

Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/