As the world moves further online, the need for reliable digital identities has never been more urgent. But how should such a system work, and who should control it? Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin is urging caution against the rising trend of one-size-fits-all solutions, arguing that the future of digital identity should be pluralistic, not monopolistic.
In a detailed blog post, Buterin lays out his concerns with the emerging “one-per-person” identity systems that promise to verify each human uniquely online. While these schemes aim to combat spam, fraud, and bots, Buterin warns they risk undermining online freedom if implemented as singular, global solutions.
Worldcoin’s Rapid Expansion Raises Concerns
Among the most prominent players is World, formerly known as Worldcoin, which has captured global attention with its biometric-based World IDs. The project, backed by Sam Altman, uses biometric scans combined with zero-knowledge proofs to confirm each user’s humanity while ostensibly preserving privacy. World has already amassed over 26 million users worldwide and recently expanded into six major U.S. cities. Partnerships with giants like Visa and Match Group, the owner of Tinder, underscore World’s ambition to weave itself into the fabric of digital life.
Proponents argue such systems are vital in an age of AI-generated deepfakes and rampant bots, but the rollout has not been without controversy. Regulators in multiple countries have raised alarms over privacy and surveillance risks inherent to collecting biometric data at such a scale.
The Dangers of Universal IDs
Buterin acknowledges the utility of one-per-person identity systems, especially for enabling fair governance and reducing digital spam. But he argues a universal approach comes with serious downsides:
“In the real world, pseudonymity generally requires having multiple accounts,” he writes, warning that forcing everyone into a single identity could erode online anonymity. “If it’s common knowledge that everyone has only one identity, you can be coerced into revealing it.”
Such rigidity, he cautions, could make it easier for bad actors, including governments or corporations, to pressure individuals, track dissent, or suppress marginalised groups who rely on anonymity for safety.
Embracing Pluralistic Identity
Buterin’s alternative vision is what he calls a “pluralistic identity” system, an ecosystem of overlapping, competing identity protocols. Rather than relying on a single ID issued by one authority, a pluralistic system would allow individuals to maintain different identities for different contexts, just as people now use separate social media accounts or pseudonyms in various communities.
These could range from explicit systems, like social-graph-based IDs built on relationships and trust within communities, to the implicit patchwork of existing credentials like passports, work logins, or platform-specific profiles. By having multiple identity systems, it becomes much harder for any single entity government, company, or protocol to monopolise identity or coerce users into a single, trackable profile.
Pluralistic systems also better accommodate those who can’t participate in biometric schemes or don’t have formal identification, ensuring a broader, more inclusive approach to identity in the digital age.
Humanity Protocol’s Woes Underscore the Risks
Buterin’s call for caution comes as rival projects like Humanity Protocol face crises of their own. The Humanity Protocol token recently plummeted in value after its founder admitted the network could be up to 88% bots, casting doubt on the reliability of even seemingly sophisticated identity systems.
The incident highlights the complex trade-offs inherent to digital identity: while the promise of one-ID-per-person systems lies in eliminating fake users, the technical and social challenges of verifying humanity without sacrificing privacy are formidable.
A Call for Thoughtful Innovation
Buterin is not opposed to innovation in identity; rather, he insists it must come with safeguards against overreach. “The ideal outcome,” he writes, “is if one-per-person identity systems today merge with social-graph-based identity… at which point there would be enough adoption to safely grow a globally distributed social graph.”
In Buterin’s view, a fragmented, diverse landscape of identity systems is more resilient, protective of individual freedom, and better suited to the messy realities of a global, digital society. As the race to build the world’s digital ID infrastructure heats up, his words serve as a timely reminder that who controls identity and how will shape the future of the internet itself.
