Decentralized identity's primary value is universal resolvability—anyone can verify a credential from any issuer. Competing registries like ENS, .bit, and Unstoppable Domains create parallel, incompatible namespaces. This replicates the walled-garden problem of Web2.
decentralized-identity-did-and-reputation
Blog
Why Competing DID Registries Are a Threat to Universal Resolvability
The proliferation of DID method-specific registries is recreating the very silos decentralized identity was meant to dismantle, breaking the foundational promise of a single, universal namespace.
introduction
THE FRAGMENTATION
Introduction
The proliferation of competing DID registries is creating isolated identity silos that undermine the core promise of a universally resolvable web.
The technical conflict is fundamental. A DID like did:example:alice must resolve through a single, agreed-upon registry. Multiple registries for the same method (did:ethr vs. did:pkh) or overlapping domains (.eth vs .crypto) force applications to choose a winner, breaking interoperability.
Evidence: The Ethereum ecosystem already shows this with ENS's dominance over earlier systems like the Ethereum Name Service. New L2-specific naming systems fragment the namespace further, requiring users to manage multiple identities for the same persona.
thesis-statement
THE FRAGMENTATION THREAT
The Core Argument
Competing DID registries create isolated identity silos that directly undermine the core promise of a universally resolvable, user-owned web.
Fragmentation breaks universal resolvability. A decentralized identifier (DID) is only useful if any verifier can resolve it to its associated public keys and service endpoints. Competing registries like ENS on Ethereum, Bonfida on Solana, and .bit on Nervos create parallel, non-interoperable namespaces, forcing applications to choose a winner or integrate multiple complex resolvers.
Silos recreate Web2's walled gardens. This registry competition mirrors the early internet's domain wars before DNS standardization. Users are forced into vendor lock-in based on their chain preference, fracturing social graphs and reputational capital across incompatible systems like Lens Protocol and Farcaster.
Evidence: The current landscape requires a verifier to check multiple on-chain resolvers and off-chain DID document hubs. This complexity is a primary reason Sign-In with Ethereum (SIWE) adoption lags behind centralized OAuth, as developers face integration overhead instead of a single, reliable lookup.
key-trends
THE IDENTITY WALLED GARDENS
The Fractured Landscape
Decentralized identity is failing its core promise of universal resolvability as competing registries create isolated, non-interoperable silos.
01
The ENS vs. Unstoppable Domains Cold War
The two largest DID registries operate on separate, incompatible smart contracts and resolution standards. This forces applications to choose a side, fragmenting the user base and developer ecosystem.
- ENS uses
.ethon Ethereum mainnet with a custom resolver. - Unstoppable Domains mints NFTs across multiple chains (Polygon, Solana) with its own resolution layer.
- Result: A
.cryptoname is unreadable in a native ENS wallet, and vice-versa.
2.7M+
.eth Names
4.2M+
Unstoppable NFTs
02
The L2 Fragmentation Multiplier
Every new Layer 2 and alt-L1 launches its own native naming service (e.g., Arbitrum's arb.id, zkSync's zks), treating identity as a chain-specific feature rather than a portable primitive.
- Creates chain-locked identities that break cross-chain UX.
- Forces users to manage multiple names for the same persona.
- Replicates the registrar rent-seeking model on every new execution layer.
10+
L2 Naming Systems
0
Universal Standard
03
The Social Graph Silos (Lens vs. Farcaster)
Social protocols bake identity into their proprietary graphs, making user profiles and reputations non-transferable. Your Lens handle has no meaning on Farcaster, trapping social capital.
- Lens Profiles are NFTs on Polygon, bound to their protocol's logic.
- Farcaster IDs are incremental NFTs on Optimism, tied to its hub network.
- This defeats the purpose of user-owned data, creating new centralized platforms with extra steps.
350k+
Lens Profiles
200k+
Farcaster Users
04
The Verifiable Credential Jungle
Issuers of attestations (like Gitcoin Passport, Worldcoin) use different credential formats (W3C VC, EAS schemas) and store them in incompatible registries (Ethereum Attestation Service, Ceramic, IPFS).
- A Gitcoin Stamp cannot be natively verified by a protocol using EAS.
- No universal resolver exists to aggregate trust scores across standards.
- This undermines the composability of on-chain reputation and sybil resistance.
40+
Stamp Types
3+
Major Standards
05
The Wallet-Exclusive Identity Trap
Wallets like Metamask (via Snaps) and Rainbow are building proprietary identity features (e.g., petnames, social recovery) that only work within their own ecosystem. This recentralizes control and creates vendor lock-in.
- Your Rainbow recovery settings are useless if you switch to Metamask.
- Fragments user experience based on wallet choice, not protocol choice.
- Turns wallets into the new identity custodians.
30M+
MAU Wallet Users
100%
Siloed Data
06
The Solution: Aggregation Layers & Minimal Standards
Universal resolvability requires a thin, base-layer standard for discovery (like CCIP-Read) and competitive aggregation layers that resolve across silos, similar to how 1inch aggregates liquidity.
- SPACE ID and Laser attempt this by indexing multiple naming services.
- EIP-6963 (multi-injected provider discovery) is a model for wallet-agnostic standards.
- The winning standard will be the one that makes the underlying registry irrelevant to the end user.
1
Required Standard
N
Aggregated Registries
THE INTEROPERABILITY TRAP
Registry Fragmentation Matrix
A comparison of dominant DID registry models and their impact on universal resolvability. Fragmentation creates walled gardens that break the core promise of portable identity.
| Core Resolvability Feature | ENS (Ethereum) | Solana Name Service (SNS) | Unstoppable Domains (Polygon/Other) | Decentralized Identifier (DID) Standard (W3C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary Root Registry | Ethereum Mainnet | Solana Mainnet | Polygon, others (multi-chain) | None (specification only) |
Native Cross-Chain Resolution | ||||
Resolver Standard Adherence | EIP-137/ENSIP-1 | Custom SPL Program | Custom Smart Contracts | DID Core (W3C Rec) |
Default TLD Governance | DAO-controlled (.eth) | Foundation-controlled (.sol) | Corporation-controlled (.crypto, .nft) | N/A |
Annual Registration Fee (Example) | $5-20 (.eth) | ~$20 (.sol) | One-time $40-1000+ | |
Trust Assumption for Resolution | Ethereum consensus | Solana consensus | Registry owner + bridge security | Implementing verifier |
Integration with Verifiable Credentials | Via EIP-712 / off-chain | Limited / custom | Via partnered platforms | Native (core spec) |
deep-dive
THE INTEROPERABILITY TRAP
The Technical Debt of Method-Specific Resolvers
Decentralized Identity (DID) registries that enforce a single resolution method create systemic fragmentation, undermining the core promise of universal resolvability.
Method-specific resolvers fragment the namespace. Each DID method (e.g., did:ethr, did:key, did:ion) mandates its own resolver library, forcing applications to integrate multiple SDKs. This creates a combinatorial integration burden, mirroring the early days of blockchain-specific RPC providers like Infura and Alchemy before multi-chain clients emerged.
Universal resolvers become version-locked gatekeepers. Frameworks like the W3C's Universal Resolver aggregate drivers but centralize dependency management. Updating support for did:ethr or adding did:sol requires a coordinated release, creating a bottleneck akin to the Lido governance process for adding new node operators.
The result is protocol-level vendor lock-in. A wallet built for did:key cannot resolve a did:ethr identifier without a hard fork, similar to how early dApps were locked to a single chain like Ethereum. This defeats the purpose of a portable, user-owned identity standard.
Evidence: The DIF's Universal Resolver currently lists over 15 distinct driver implementations. Maintaining compatibility across these diverging codebases requires constant effort, a technical debt that scales linearly with each new DID method proposal.
counter-argument
THE FRAGMENTATION THREAT
The Steelman: Why Method Registries Exist
Competing DID registries create isolated identity silos, directly undermining the core promise of a universally resolvable decentralized web.
Universal resolvability is the goal. A DID like did:example:123 must resolve to the same verifiable data regardless of the resolver's client or location, analogous to how DNS works for websites. Without a single source of truth for method specifications, this is impossible.
Method registries prevent namespace collisions. They are the authoritative directory mapping a DID method prefix (e.g., did:ethr:, did:key:) to its technical specification. Competing registries, like a hypothetical did:ethr on IANA and a different did:ethr on W3C-Community, create unresolvable ambiguity for clients.
Fragmentation destroys network effects. If MetaMask uses one did:ethr registry and Rabby Wallet uses another, a user's identity becomes wallet-specific. This recreates the very walled gardens that DIDs and Verifiable Credentials were designed to dismantle.
Evidence: The W3C DID Specification Registries list over 150 methods. The existence of this centralized, curated list is not a bug; it is the critical coordination layer preventing the ecosystem from splintering into useless, incompatible fragments.
risk-analysis
THE INTEROPERABILITY TRAP
Consequences of a Fragmented DID Layer
Competing DID registries create walled gardens that break the fundamental promise of a universally resolvable identity layer.
01
The ENS vs. Unstoppable Domains Standoff
The two largest registries operate as parallel, incompatible systems. This forces applications to choose a side, fracturing the user base and developer ecosystem.
- ENS dominates Ethereum L1/L2 with ~2.3M+ domains.
- Unstoppable Domains prioritizes multi-chain support but uses a proprietary, centralized resolution system.
- Result: A
.cryptodomain cannot natively resolve in an ENS-first dApp, and vice-versa.
2.3M+
ENS Domains
0
Native Interop
02
Broken Composability for DeFi & Social
Fragmentation destroys the network effects critical for on-chain reputation and credit systems. A user's history is siloed within their chosen DID registry.
- Lending protocols like Aave or Compound cannot build a unified credit score across registry boundaries.
- Social graphs from Farcaster or Lens become isolated, preventing a universal web of social capital.
- This undermines the value proposition of Soulbound Tokens (SBTs) and verifiable credentials.
$0
Portable Reputation
Siloed
Social Graphs
03
The Resolution Layer Bottleneck
Every new registry forces integrators to add custom resolution logic, creating unsustainable overhead and security risks.
- Wallets like MetaMask or Rainbow must maintain and update multiple resolution adapters.
- Each new adapter is a potential attack vector for phishing or spoofing.
- The $10B+ DeFi ecosystem faces increased integration costs and user confusion, slowing adoption.
N+
Integration Points
High
Attack Surface
04
The Verifiable Credentials Dead End
Without a universal resolver, attestations from one system (e.g., Worldcoin's proof-of-personhood) are meaningless in another, crippling trust networks.
- A KYC credential issued via Circle's Verite framework cannot be trustlessly verified by a protocol using a different DID method.
- This forces users to re-verify identity for each walled garden, defeating the purpose of self-sovereign identity.
- Projects like gitcoin Passport become limited to specific ecosystems.
0
Cross-System Trust
High
User Friction
future-outlook
THE FRAGMENTATION PROBLEM
The Path to a Universal Resolver
Competing DID registries create isolated identity silos that undermine the core promise of a universally resolvable decentralized web.
Competing registries fragment the namespace. A user's identity on Ethereum Name Service (ENS) is not natively resolvable by a Solana Name Service (SNS) resolver, forcing applications to integrate multiple lookup tables.
Universal resolvability requires a single source of truth. The Decentralized Identifier (DID) standard defines a resolution method, but competing implementations like ION (Bitcoin) and Veramo create protocol-specific resolution layers.
This fragmentation breaks composability. A DeFi protocol using Ceramic Network for user profiles cannot seamlessly verify credentials issued via a W3C Verifiable Credentials registry on a different chain without custom bridges.
Evidence: The ENS ecosystem has over 2.8 million registered names, but they are not natively usable as identifiers in the Cosmos or Solana ecosystems, requiring separate, duplicative registration systems.
takeaways
THE FRAGMENTATION THREAT
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Decentralized Identity (DID) is foundational for composability, but competing registries create walled gardens that break universal resolvability.
01
The W3C DID Core Standard is Not Enough
The standard defines the syntax, not the network. Without a canonical resolution layer, every registry (e.g., ENS, SpruceID, Veramo) becomes its own root of trust, creating protocol-specific silos.
- Fragmented Discovery: Users cannot be found across applications without bespoke integrations.
- Broken Portability: Credentials issued in one system are unverifiable in another, defeating self-sovereignty.
100+
DID Methods
0
Universal Layer
02
ENS vs. Unstoppable Domains: The Name War
The battle for the .eth vs. .crypto namespace is a canonical case study. Both are dominant registries on different L1s (Ethereum and Polygon) with no native interoperability.
- User Confusion: Which namespace is the 'true' identity?
- Protocol Overhead: Dapps must integrate multiple resolvers, increasing complexity and ~30% gas costs for fallback logic.
2.1M+
.eth Names
2.5M+
.crypto Names
03
The Verifiable Credential (VC) Lock-In
Platforms like Microsoft Entra, Circle's Verite, and Ontology issue VCs tied to their proprietary DID methods. This creates vendor lock-in under the guise of decentralization.
- Non-Portable Reputation: Your on-chain credit score from one system is useless elsewhere.
- Resolution Sprawl: Each issuer requires its own verification SDK, blounting dapp frontends.
10+
Major VC Issuers
1
Native Interop
04
Solution: Universal Resolver Drivers & CCIP-Read
The fix is a standardized resolution interface, not a single registry. The W3C Universal Resolver with driver architecture and Ethereum's CCIP-Read pattern allow any DID method to be resolved via a single endpoint.
- Unified API: Dapps query one resolver for any
did:method:identifier. - L1 Agnostic: Works across Ethereum, Solana, Bitcoin via gateway proofs.
1
API Endpoint
-70%
Integration Dev Time
05
Solution: Decentralized Identifier Hubs (DID Hubs)
Inspired by IPFS and Arweave, a content-addressed storage layer for DID Documents separates the identifier from the registry. Hubs like Ceramic Network provide the canonical data layer.
- Registry-Neutral: ENS or Unstoppable can point to the same DID Doc.
- Censorship-Resistant: Data availability is independent of the naming system.
100k+
Streams on Ceramic
~200ms
Resolution Latency
06
The Economic Incentive: Staking for Resolution
Align registry operators via staking slashing, similar to Cosmos interchain security. Registries stake tokens to be included in a universal resolution set, with slashing for downtime or malicious updates.
- Sybil Resistance: Prevents spam registry creation.
- High Uptime SLA: Economic guarantee for >99.9% resolver availability, critical for DeFi (e.g., Aave, Compound user onboarding).
>99.9%
Uptime SLA
$TVL Staked
Security Backing
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall