Compass Investments

– The main risk Buterin pointed out is that platforms could force users to use a single, traceable identity, preventing them from creating separate, anonymous profiles. In real life, anonymity usually involves multiple accounts, he said.

Without that flexibility, he said, users could find themselves in a situation where all of your activity is essentially tied to one public persona, increasing the risk of surveillance by authorities or employers.

Buterin also criticized the idea of using only proof of wealth as a measure against sybil attacks, saying it excludes people who can’t pay and concentrates power in the hands of the rich.

The ideal solution would be something in between, where you can get N identities at N²

cost, he said.

To achieve a flexible approach, Buterin suggested pluralistic identity systems, in which no single organization controls the issuance of identities, as the most realistic solution.

He explained that they can be explicit, using social graph-based verification such as Circles, or implicit, relying on multiple identity providers – government documents, social platforms and others – so that no one identity gets a dominant market share.

“Any form of pluralistic identity … … is inherently more resilient to disruption, he emphasized, pointing out that such flexibility helps people who are stateless or lack access to traditional identifiers.

Ultimately, Buterin said, the best outcome will be to combine single-person identity schemes with social graph systems to create a variety of global identity networks. “If they get close to 100% market share, they’re going to move the world to a one-to-one model, which has the worst properties, he warned, emphasizing that only a pluralistic identity can strike a balance between privacy, inclusivity and resilience to abuse.