Worldcoin (WLD) has been in the spotlight since the launch of its “World ID” system on July 24. The launch has raised concerns about onboarding security risks and the use of biometric data, leading several countries, including the United Kingdom, France, and Argentina, to investigate the matter.
In the tech industry, there is often a conflict between the drive to innovate and the need to consider ethical implications. As technologies such as machine learning, facial recognition, and big data analytics become more advanced, the ethical stakes also increase.
Criticism from external analysts, journalists, or ethicists can sometimes have positive outcomes by pushing companies to consider ethical implications and potentially change their practices. However, it can also lead to a backlash that hinders innovation or results in increased regulation. Ethical and social concerns are significant factors that innovators must navigate, especially when their innovations touch on sensitive areas like privacy, autonomy, and social justice.
Instead of focusing solely on the merits of Worldcoin, it is important to consider the potential consequences of excessive criticism. Criticizing it to the point of undermining its progress could severely delay technological advancement. Worldcoin aims to solve the digital identity issue by bypassing governments. An interoperable and accessible digital identity solution would eliminate concerns about losing identity documents or facing accessibility issues due to changes in one’s home country.
Having previously worked with the United Nations on distributed digital identity solutions, I am aware that a well-designed system could combat corruption, prevent identity replication, reduce fraud, and protect citizens against censorship. This is particularly beneficial for those who receive support from supranational organizations. A digital identity that is always valid and universally recognized is not just convenient but also life-saving.
The argument for such a system is supported by the fact that while individual governments may handle identity well, there is no seamless global system for identity. Moreover, no significant progress has been made by any consortium of governments in using technology to address this issue. Worldcoin recognized this opportunity and chose to address the problem privately, becoming the first mover in the process.
This situation reminds me of another Web3 first mover, Libra, which aimed to solve market failures with a private-sector solution. However, it faced severe scrutiny and eventually disbanded. The failure of Libra, partly due to its association with a founder who did not adequately safeguard data or prioritize users’ best interests, demonstrates the challenges faced by ambitious projects. Nonetheless, the minds behind Libra have continued to explore solutions in other companies, such as Circle and Lightspark.
While progress may have been altered, it has not been completely lost. However, the fear and suspicion generated by the scrutiny of projects like Libra can significantly impact the adoption of digital identity by communities that need it the most.
Although there is a trend of private sector technologies attempting to replace public services, it is important to acknowledge that the private sector often excels at problem-solving and efficiently applying new technologies. While a private company should not have the final say on identity, if it has already invested in infrastructure and technology, it would be wise to build upon its efforts. Worldcoin has made groundbreaking innovations in ID management, storage, and processing. By fostering an “open innovation model,” we can use this work to improve global systems, such as global voting, which still largely remains localized despite facing global challenges like climate change.
Building a new system, such as a post-proof world, requires a significant mindset shift in how we view, use, and trust our systems. The blockchain journey began in 2009, contemplating the changes that a post-centralized world would bring. Now, we face a similar question about how our society will change in a post-proof world. It is crucial to have discussions about Worldcoin that focus less on the company and founders and more on the system that will be built. Other ambitious projects will follow, and we should pose the same critical questions to them regarding privacy safeguards, user incentives, governance mechanisms, and the overall impact on our world.
In conclusion, it is easy to criticize Worldcoin, but we must remain aware that certain authorities, particularly those who do not want to provide digital identity to their citizens, may feel threatened by the borderless nature of this initiative. Not all criticism of Worldcoin aims to improve it. We should challenge ourselves to think beyond the present and consider how we can build a better system for a post-proof world.