Intuition 백서 전문

decentralized identity systems. EIP 7702 introduces enhancements to transaction management, enabling functionalities such as batching multiple operations, sponsorship where one account pays for another’s transaction, and privilege de-escalation by allowing sub-keys with limited permissions. These features improve usability, security, and eﬃciency, making decentralized identity systems more user-friendly and versatile. Sign In With Ethereum (SIWE) also represents a signiﬁcant advancement in leveraging Ethereum addresses as decentralized identiﬁers, providing a secure and user-friendly authentication method. By allowing users to authenticate themselves using their Ethereum addresses, SIWE enhances the seamless integration of decentralized identity systems within the broader Web3 ecosystem. SIWE enables users to log into various platforms and applications using their Ethereum wallets, such as MetaMask. The process involves signing a unique authentication request with their private key, proving ownership of the Ethereum address without exposing sensitive information. This approach eliminates the need for traditional usernames and passwords, oﬀering a more secure and streamlined user experience. EIP-712, which standardizes the signing of structured data on Ethereum, can also be leveraged to solve the decentralized identity puzzle. EIP-712 introduces a structured and human-readable way to sign typed data, improving the security and usability of digital signatures. When users sign authentication requests or other transactions, they can see exactly what they are signing, reducing the risk of phishing attacks and accidental approvals of malicious transactions. This transparency is crucial for maintaining trust in decentralized interactions - for example, SIWE leverages EIP-712 to improve the user experience and security of the authentication process. The Ethereum Name Service (ENS) has emerged as a cornerstone of decentralized identity on Ethereum, oﬀering a user-friendly method for linking human-readable names to Ethereum addresses and other decentral- ized identiﬁers. ENS enables users to register names ending in .eth, which can then be used as a shorthand 26 for Ethereum addresses, smart contracts, and even oﬀ-chain resources such as IPFS content. This greatly enhances the usability of decentralized systems by abstracting complex alphanumeric addresses into simple, memorable names. The emergence of decentralized social networks like Lens Protocol and Farcaster marks a transformative change in the way social interactions and digital identities are handled on the blockchain. These platforms are at the forefront of developing decentralized social graphs, enabling users to fully own and control their social connections, personal data, and content. This ownership ensures that users can manage their digital presence without relying on centralized intermediaries, oﬀering greater privacy and autonomy. The decen- tralized social graphs established by these platforms not only enhance user empowerment but also present valuable opportunities for integration with decentralized identity projects. By tapping into these networks, decentralized identity solutions can leverage the robust, user-controlled data structures created by Lens and Farcaster. 3.4 Attestations The Ethereum ecosystem’s recent advancements have signiﬁcantly contributed to the development of an attestation ecosystem. Attestations are simply cryptographically signed statements made by entities about things. The cryptographic signing ensures these statements are veriﬁable and tamper-proof, which is essential for maintaining trust and integrity in decentralized identity systems. By leveraging Ethereum’s decentralized infrastructure, attestations can be issued and veriﬁed without relying on central authorities. Ethereum’s ability to enable users and entities to issue and verify cryptographic attestations provides a robust framework for establishing trust and identity in a decentralized manner. Similar to Veriﬁable Claims or Credentials, attestations can represent a wide range of assertions, from simple claims about an entity’s attributes to complex reputational data. This versatility allows for the creation of rich, multifaceted identity proﬁles. Notable examples of the evolving attestation ecosystem include the Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) and Verax. Both platforms oﬀer scalable and decentralized solutions for issuing and verifying attestations. By leveraging the Ethereum blockchain, these services ensure that attestations are timestamped, secure, veriﬁable, and tamper-resistant, thus reinforcing the decentralized trust model. These advancements empower us to easily and securely sign arbitrary data about various entities, creating veriﬁable evidence of who made a statement, what was said, and when it was said—all without the need for intermediaries. The implications of this development are profound, enabling a transformative shift in how trust and identity are managed in the digital realm. This marks a signiﬁcant leap towards a more decentralized, transparent, and reliable internet, where trust is rooted in cryptographic proofs rather than centralized authorities. This shift not only enhances security and transparency but also democratizes digital interactions, paving the way for a truly decentralized web. 4 Current Challenges in Building a Trustful Interaction Layer Despite advancements in trust-facilitating technologies such as decentralized identity and veriﬁable data solutions, the web’s interaction layer still falls short of enabling eﬃcient and well-informed decision-making. This gap can be attributed to several challenges, including those outlined below, which must be addressed in the pursuit of a reliable and eﬀective digital ecosystem. 4.1 Identity F ragmentation 4.1.1 User Identity F ragmentation Identity fragmentation persists in Web3, where individuals and entities often have multiple identiﬁers. This fragmentation leads to a lack of a uniﬁed digital persona, making the discernment of the reputation of any one identity diﬃcult. In the Web2 world, users typically manage hundreds of accounts across various platforms, each with its own login credentials and identity attributes. This proliferation of identities is mirrored in Web3, where users might have multiple identiﬁers they use to interact across diﬀerent blockchain networks and in diﬀerent contexts. 27 The primary issue with identity fragmentation is the challenge it poses for establishing a cohesive and compre- hensive reputation. Each account or identiﬁer may contain bits and pieces of a user’s activities, interactions, and endorsements, but without a uniﬁed digital persona, it is diﬃcult to aggregate this information into a co- herent reputation proﬁle. This disjointed nature of identities complicates trust and veriﬁcation processes, as stakeholders must navigate through fragmented data to assess the credibility and reliability of an individual or entity. Furthermore, managing multiple identities is cumbersome for users, leading to ineﬃciencies and potential security risks. Users may struggle to keep track of numerous credentials, increasing the likelihood of weak password usage, password reuse, and susceptibility to phishing attacks. In a decentralized context, the lack of a uniﬁed identity can hinder seamless interactions across platforms and services, reducing the overall user experience and slowing the adoption of decentralized technologies. Recent advancements in the decentralized identity and blockchain wallet arenas are beginning to address these issues by allowing users to aggregate their identities and manage them as if they were one. However, challenges around identity correlation, interoperability, and consolidated reputation persist. 4.1.2 Non-User Identity F ragmentation Identity fragmentation, typically discussed in the context of users, is equally critical for non-user entities such as products, services, and concepts. In the digital landscape, these entities often lack consistent and reliable identiﬁers, creating signiﬁcant challenges in data aggregation, interoperability, and trust. In the Web2 environment, non-user entities are identiﬁed through platform-speciﬁc identiﬁers, which are isolated and independently managed. This isolation prevents a uniﬁed and comprehensive view of any given entity, complicating eﬀorts to establish and verify reputations, track provenance, and ensure data integrity. Each platform may maintain its own version of an entity’s identity, leading to inconsistencies and duplication. The emergence of decentralized identiﬁers (DIDs) oﬀers a robust solution to this issue. DIDs provide a uni- versal, persistent, and veriﬁable method to identify non-user entities across multiple platforms and contexts. By assigning DIDs to these entities, it is possible to create a cohesive digital representation recognized and trusted across diﬀerent systems. Unlike user identities, non-user entities, such as words or concepts, typically cannot possess self-sovereign identities due to their non-autonomous nature. Thus, there are two approaches to managing the sovereignty of these identities: they are either controlled by no one or collectively managed by a representative group (or everyone). The latter approach, facilitated by blockchain technology, introduces decentralized, community- governed identiﬁers. Blockchains enable a paradigm in which the control over the identity of non-user entities can be decentral- ized and transparent. This approach allows the identity of a product, service, or concept to be managed through decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). These ‘identity DAOs’ or ‘data DAOs’ could help ensure the accuracy, consistency, and tamper-proof nature of identity information by relying on community consensus rather than a single centralized entity. For instance, a decentralized dictionary managed by a ‘data DAO’ would revolutionize the way words and concepts are deﬁned and maintained. Unlike traditional dictionaries, which are controlled by centralized entities such as Merriam-Webster, a data DAO leverages decentralized governance, ensuring that no single group has monopolistic control over language deﬁnitions. This decentralized approach democratizes the process of deﬁning words, allowing contributions and consensus from a broad and diverse community. This participatory model fosters transparency and inclusivity, capturing the evolving nature of language more accurately. Decentralized governance mechanisms within a data DAO also enable a more comprehensive and uniﬁed digital representation of concepts. As a result, data aggregation and interoperability may be signiﬁcantly improved. The decentralized dictionary could seamlessly integrate with various applications, platforms, and services, providing a reliable and consistent source of information that is universally recognized. This approach not only enhances the reliability of digital data but also encourages continuous improvement and adaptation through community involvement, making it a more robust and dynamic system. However, due to the absence of innovation and experimentation in this area, the issue of non-user identity fragmentation remains. 28 4.2 Data Expression, A vailability , F ragmentation, Discoverability , and Comprehensibility 4.2.1 Lack of Expression The current state of digital ecosystems, both Web2 and Web3, illustrates a pervasive issue: the mere presence of infrastructure for creating “claims about things” does not guarantee active user engagement and expression. This challenge is not conﬁned to Web3; it is also evident in Web2 environments. For instance, platforms such as Yelp, Amazon, and Google provide robust systems for user reviews, yet the majority of users seldom participate. Similarly, professional networking sites like LinkedIn feature endorsement mechanisms that remain signiﬁcantly underutilized, with only a small fraction of users actively endorsing their peers. A signiﬁcant volume of potentially valuable data remains untapped due to the lack of incentives for users to express this information. Without adequate ﬁnancial, functional, or reputational rewards, users are less motivated to contribute meaningful data. Consequently, the digital landscape is often incomplete and less informative. Speciﬁcally in the context of the decentralized web, the data necessary for successful interaction and nav- igation exists, but is frequently conﬁned to the minds of individuals. Many users possess the knowledge required for eﬀective decision-making within this environment, but this expertise typically stems from ex- tensive time, attention, research, and active participation in specialized communities. There is a substantial gap in knowledge transfer from those who have mastered the ecosystem to those who are new, lack the time, or do not have the technical expertise. While recommendations and endorsements occur frequently in everyday conversations, they are often limited to private interactions such as text messages, group chats, and face-to-face discussions. These valuable exchanges of information are not captured at critical points where they would be most impactful, such as on Amazon at the point of purchase, on Spotify when discovering new music, or in MetaMask when signing an Ethereum transaction. This disconnect prevents the aggregation and public sharing of insights that could beneﬁt a broader audience, thereby limiting the eﬀectiveness of these platforms in providing comprehensive and trustworthy information. 4.2.2 Lack of A vailability For data to be truly useful, it must be not only captured but also made readily accessible. Presently, data is dispersed across various mediums, each with varying degrees of openness. The original vision for the internet, as envisaged by pioneers like Tim Berners-Lee, was to create an open and interoperable platform, epitomized by concepts like the Semantic Web. This vision aimed to facilitate seamless data exchange and integration across the web; however, reality has diverged signiﬁcantly from this ideal. In the current landscape, many Web2 companies have erected barriers around their data, often restricting access through paid APIs to protect their competitive advantages. These data silos have become critical assets for these companies, transforming data into a highly guarded commodity. This approach undermines the foundational principles of openness and interoperability that the internet was meant to uphold. In contrast, the Web3 ecosystem, driven by a diﬀerent ethos, generally promotes open access to data. Despite this, data fragmentation remains a signiﬁcant issue, impairing its usability. For instance, decentralized social media platforms, though aligned with the principles of Web3, often lack interoperability with one another due to competing standards. This fragmentation complicates the integration and comprehensive use of data, making it challenging to achieve the seamless interaction envisioned for the decentralized web. 4.2.3 Standards and Data Fragmentation Assuming that data is available, data usability also necessitates addressing the pervasive issue of data frag- mentation, particularly within the permissionless Web3 ecosystem. Data fragmentation arises predominantly from challenges related to data structuring and standard/schema fragmentation. Common standards, like the ERC-20 protocol for tokens, form the backbone of the permissionless Web3 envi- ronment. Without these standards, organizing in a distributed way would be exceedingly diﬃcult. Diﬀerent systems cannot eﬀectively communicate or share data, isolating information within each silo. The lack of standardized data formats and the proliferation of disparate schemas present substantial obstacles. This absence of uniformity hinders data composability, obstructs the seamless integration of services, and degrades the user experience. In Web3, these issues are a continuation of those seen in Web2, where rampant 29 fragmentation renders veriﬁable data sets largely irreconcilable for advanced use cases, particularly those involving reputation systems. For example, most attestation and veriﬁable platforms maintain their own distinct schema registries, which leads to further fragmentation. Even within a single platform like the Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS), schemas can vary signiﬁcantly across diﬀerent chains. This diversity in schema representation for similar data types complicates reconciliation, particularly when attempting to align ﬁelds across diﬀerent schemas. This complexity makes it challenging to develop eﬀective query and aggregation tools on top of the veriﬁable data set. To address these issues, initiatives are developing common protocols and frameworks. The Decentralized Identity Foundation (DIF) and W3C work on interoperable standards for digital identities and credentials to ensure eﬀective communication and data sharing across platforms. Protocols like IPFS and Ceramic Network enhance interoperability and data composability by facilitating cooperative decentralized data creation, stor- age, and sharing. Initiatives like schema.org contribute to standardizing data schemas, promoting consistent data representation across platforms. However, developing and agreeing upon universal standards is often slow and contentious, referred to as “stan- dards hell. ” Platforms frequently develop and defend their own protocols, leading to further fragmentation. This lack of common standards complicates interoperability, making it challenging for users to transition between services and for applications to leverage identity data across ecosystems. Figure 8: https://xkcd.com/927/ 4.2.4 Lack of Discoverability Even when valuable data is generated, made available, and potentially standardized, it frequently remains inaccessible due to poor discoverability. The absence of robust search and indexing mechanisms complicates data discovery, making it challenging for users to locate relevant information. Crucial data, such as secu- rity audit reports, user sentiment, and other critical insights, are dispersed across various platforms like GitHub, Twitter, Farcaster, and project-speciﬁc forums. This dispersion undermines the transparency and accountability of decentralized systems, as users struggle to access comprehensive and reliable data. Consider, for example, a scenario where information about a speciﬁc product is scattered across multiple platforms. Even if the data about the product is accessible and standardized, the lack of a canonical identiﬁer for the product makes it diﬃcult to know where to search for this data. Users might ﬁnd reviews on Amazon, technical speciﬁcations on the manufacturer’s website, user discussions on Reddit, and visual content on Instagram. Without a uniﬁed identiﬁer linking all this information, discovering and aggregating the relevant data becomes an onerous task. While many aggregators exist in both Web2 and Web3, they introduce a new layer of complexity to the trust stack. Reliance on centralized aggregators can create dependency issues. If these platforms experi- ence outages, technical failures, or malicious attacks, or if they become biased, manipulated, or decide to present only one side of the data, the accessibility of critical information is compromised. This dependency 30 fundamentally undermines the decentralized ethos of blockchain technology, which prioritizes resilience and distributed control. Hence, while aggregation and indexing are essential for enhancing data discoverability, they must be implemented in ways that preserve the decentralized nature of the systems they support. 4.2.5 Lack of Comprehensibility Data is only valuable if it can be properly interpreted. While data availability, standardization, interoper- ability, and discoverability are essential for accessing data, they do not inherently make data useful. The true value of dat