Is Web3 — often touted as a remedy for central authority abuses — being used as a diversion to promote underhanded centralization by certain founders? Here we explore how this ideal can be manipulated by founders for personal profit and power. One illustrative case is that of Sam Altman and Worldcoin.

Worldcoin, presented as a revolutionary digital identity solution, aims to address global challenges by providing proof of personhood through biometric data, specifically iris scans. The project envisions a system where each person can prove their uniqueness, enabling fairer access to digital services and potentially addressing issues like bots and identity fraud.

I have many professional and personal reservations when it comes to the Worldcoin project — first, it seems awfully convenient that both Sam Altman’s Worldcoin and the OpenAI project center around the collection of very sensitive and personal data — using the idea of community as a guise for both projects strikes me as disingenuous and maybe something more sinister. While both projects seem to be assisting in the efficiency of processes, at what cost, and at whose ultimate benefit is the ultimate question. Are we only help another monster organization grow even stronger, while appearing to decentralize user identity?

Despite its promising facade, Worldcoin’s approach raises significant concerns. Centralizing biometric data, such as iris scans, creates a single point of failure and a potential target for misuse. The collection and storage of such sensitive data under the pretense of decentralization undermine user privacy and security. If mishandled or exploited, this data can lead to unprecedented surveillance, control, and identity theft. At the heart of the Worldcoin project is hashing of data, but are those hashes sufficient for protection of physical user features? And, if pressed by a rogue government, could Worldcoin feasibly hand over our data to save themselves from governmental lawfare? I certainly am not confident in this approach, as there are multiple other less evasive ways to decentralize out identity information.

• Iris Capture: The user looks into the Orb, which uses advanced camera technology to take a detailed photograph of the user’s iris. The iris has a unique pattern for every individual, making it an effective biometric identifier.

• Data Encryption: The captured iris data is encrypted to ensure privacy and security. This encryption helps protect the user’s biometric information from unauthorized access or misuse.

• Hash Generation: The encrypted iris data is then used to generate a unique hash. This hash represents the individual’s identity without storing the actual image or raw biometric data. The hash is a one-way function, meaning it cannot be reversed to reconstruct the original iris image.

• Verification: When the user attempts to prove their identity in the future, they look into an Orb again. The new iris scan is encrypted and hashed, and this hash is compared to the stored hash. If the hashes match, the user’s identity is verified.

• Decentralized Storage: Worldcoin aims to store these hashes in a decentralized manner, leveraging blockchain technology to ensure that no single entity has control over the biometric data. This approach enhances security and aligns with the principles of decentralization.

• Privacy Protection: Worldcoin emphasizes privacy and claims that the iris data is not stored, only the hashes are. This ensures that even if the data were to be accessed, it could not be used to reconstruct the original iris images.

Worldcoin’s strategy highlights a troubling trend where the rhetoric of decentralization is used to build centralized power structures. Instead of empowering users and distributing control, projects like Worldcoin risk consolidating power in the hands of a few. This paradoxical use of decentralization rhetoric can mislead users into believing they are gaining autonomy when, in reality, they are submitting to a new form of centralized authority.

The ethical implications of using biometric data for digital identity are profound. Users must trust that their data will be handled responsibly, yet the potential for abuse remains high. Moreover, practical issues such as data security, user consent, and equitable access need thorough consideration. Worldcoin’s deployment strategy, which involves convincing millions of people to submit their biometric data, raises questions about informed consent and exploitation, particularly in underprivileged communities.

Sam Altman’s leadership of course, extends beyond Worldcoin to OpenAI, the organization behind ChatGPT. This connection raises additional concerns that I touched on above. ChatGPT, like other AI models, is trained on vast datasets, including user interactions. The potential integration of biometric data from Worldcoin with the extensive data collected through ChatGPT could create a powerful and invasive data ecosystem. Such a system could grant unprecedented control over personal data, enabling Altman and associated entities to dominate various sectors by leveraging detailed personal and biometric information. This would not only stifle competition but also contradict the foundational principles of decentralization, exacerbating centralization risks.

The inception of Web3 was driven by a desire to flip the current business structure, not merely change the players in charge. The core ethos of Web3 centers on user ownership, data sovereignty, and decentralized control. It aims to dismantle the hierarchical and exploitative models of Web2, where user data is monetized without their consent or benefit. Instead, Web3 promises a future where users have control over their data, identity, and digital interactions. We are watching in real time as throwbacks from the big tech era use convenience and ‘trust’ to gently massage users into adapting their brand of web3 — essentially a bastardized version of what big tech has been doing since Google created a search engine as a way to mine our data.

Web3’s foundational principle is that users should own their data. This ownership extends beyond mere control to include the ability to monetize, share, or protect their information as they see fit. Decentralized identities (DIDs) and self-sovereign identities (SSIs) are pivotal in this regard, enabling users to manage their identity without relying on centralized entities. Projects that genuinely uphold these principles offer transparent, secure, and user-centric alternatives to traditional digital identity solutions.

The Web3 community aims to invert the traditional business model by prioritizing user empowerment over corporate profit. Not to say that businesses shouldn’t profit, just not in the shifty way we have all been accustomed to. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) exemplify this shift, where decision-making power is distributed among all stakeholders rather than concentrated in the hands of a few executives. This structure ensures that the benefits of digital innovation are shared equitably and that communities have a say in the direction and governance of projects they support.

However, the ideal of Web3 is at risk of being co-opted by those who seek to replicate the centralized models of Web2 under a new guise. Founders like Sam Altman, who wield significant influence over both Web3 and AI technologies, can exploit their positions to create centralized power structures. This not only betrays the decentralization ethos but also perpetuates the same power imbalances that Web3 seeks to dismantle.

Decentralization should empower individuals, not serve as a veneer for centralized control. Vigilance and critical examination of projects claiming to uphold decentralization are crucial. As the Web3 space continues to grow, ensuring that technological advancements genuinely benefit the broader community rather than a select few is imperative.

By recognizing the cunning tactics of founders like Sam Altman, who may misuse the decentralization premise for personal gain, we can safeguard the true essence of Web3 and protect user sovereignty.

To truly uphold the principles of Web3, we need decentralized identity solutions that respect user privacy and autonomy. Unlike biometric systems that require intrusive data collection, alternatives like Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) and Verifiable Credentials (VCs) offer a less intrusive way to establish digital identities. These systems leverage cryptographic techniques to prove identity without revealing sensitive information, ensuring that control remains firmly in the hands of the user.

• DIDs are a type of identifier that enables verifiable, self-sovereign digital identities. They are created, owned, and managed by the individual, without requiring a central authority. DIDs can be used to authenticate users across various platforms and services, providing a secure and privacy-respecting way to establish identity. This approach aligns with the original ethos of Web3 by ensuring that users retain control over their identity data.

• VCs are digital statements that can be cryptographically verified. They allow users to present proofs about themselves (such as age, citizenship, or qualifications) without disclosing unnecessary personal information. This method of identity verification reduces the need for centralized data storage and minimizes the risk of data breaches and misuse.

That’s basically our whole thing in web3. It is essential to keep decentralized identity solutions free from the influence of data-heavy founders who may have conflicting interests. The shift of OpenAI from a non-profit, open-source initiative to a for-profit entity under Sam Altman’s leadership is a cautionary tale. Initially promised as a democratizing force in AI, OpenAI’s transition highlights how quickly centralized power can emerge, even within projects that begin with noble intentions.

By developing and adopting decentralized identity systems that prioritize user control and privacy, we can prevent the centralization of power and ensure that the benefits of Web3 are distributed equitably. This approach will help maintain the integrity of the Web3 vision and protect users from the potential exploitation and surveillance risks posed by centralized identity solutions. Remain skeptical.