Please describe your proposed solution.
Verifiable Credentials are an important part of digital documentation in the world. There is yet much to do to support integration and utilization, but the promise of having a verifiable system within a context where reasonable assurance exists will change the way that ownership and accomplishments are demonstrated.
Having worked in the higher education space for a long time I can attest the value a degree can bring; however, many do not complete full degrees, and not all degrees have the same value in the employment marketplace. Hence for educational application VCs have been an integral solution on the roadmap ahead as they provide strong opportunities for students who are not on a traditional pathway. Yet, responsible use is surprisingly more difficult than just providing a DID ownership of a VC and then walking away. Rather, a larger ecosystem needs to be built around application and governance of VCs. This project does not explicitly address the issue of governance but the decisions that are being made about governance are tied to only one manner through which validation occurs. This proposal introduces a concept called Cmart contracts. The effect of which can change the way that educational, training, and employment related VCs can operate.
The current soultion is to check hash ownership against keys to determine if the individual owns the VC. That may be entirely appropriate in some or most cases. However, there may be a time when there is a need for an audit, or a stronger proof of ownership. That is where a Cmart contact would come in. As the title indicates, this type of contract is a mix between a smart contract and a credential validation. When an audit is needed then an individual can test ownership and the result will be a new validation contract that increases the value of the credential.
The effect of this approach has multiple layers. First of all there is proof of ownership, that is not new. Secondly, there is an increase in the value of the credential. Currently all VCs look and manifest at the same level. However, we know that some have more utility than others. So where is that data be captured and leveled? The answer is that it currently isn't. A Cmart contract reissues validation and then incorporates the increased utility into the credential itself. In this way it essentially gets a +1 since it is being utilized. Thirdly, the ecosystem is heavily unbalanced towards issuers. Issuers build, provide, and maintain credentials without any added value. A format where Cmart validation leads to a distribution of gas and protocol fees changes the balance in more equitable ways across the system.
Once built this is how we anticipate utilization. A company is looking to hire a new tow truck driver. They receive interest from an applicant who says that he can handle heavy tow loads and has years of experience. The company owner then asks for his credentials. The driver then provides them from his DID through SSI interfaces and the owner can see that the driver holds 4 certified credentials (Heavy 1, Heavy 2, Hazardous Transport, and Mindful Communication). The owner only cares about Heavy 2 and Hazardous Transportation so he choses to use a Cmart contract to validate both of these credentials.
Ownership is proved through cryptography and a fee is collected for the process. For this exercise we can say 10 ADA. From that point 1.5 ADA go directly to the owner of the credential and the re-issuance of the VC provides a +1 for the credential. The issuer then receives 2 ADA and the issuer receives a +1 for producing VC that are being utilized. The miners and validators receive 5 ADA for completing their work. The governance ecosystem DAO receives 2.5 ADA for ecosystem support. The key work is the re-issuance of the VC with both pedigree and also layered validation.
As can be seen, there are many larger questions that need to be considered using this approach. But at this point in time, a Cmart contract doesn't exist and we would like to build one to see if it can work. We feel as if working with the Cardashift community will help us to understand how to implement Cmart contracts and they can help us build capacity for proof of concept and viability.
Please describe how your proposed solution will address the Challenge that you have submitted it in.
VC validation currently is not balanced in the education and training space. This solution can provide balance, but can also be monetized by issuers and owners. This provides a responsible scaling opportunity that holds true to the democratized approach of educational VCs while allowing for an inflow of resources to sustain the ecosystem.
Cardashift is dedicated to solving social issues including education. VCs are both an extension of democratized education, but in some respects are the ends that justify the means for students. The experience of Cardashift in this space will help us move forward with equity in mind and responsibly within the bigger picture.
What are the main risks that could prevent you from delivering the project successfully and please explain how you will mitigate each risk?
The main risks that may have an impact on the success of this project tie to utilization. Right now, there is very little adoption of VCs that come from higher education institutions and also from other issuers because of the difficultly associated with utility. VCs represent a fantastic idea, but the infrastructure is difficult to manage and there are very few engaging platforms on which to manifest and use VCs.
A high secondary risk is related to security. Since VCs are meant to be inherently robust towards security vulnerabilities we need to further assure that the ecosystem cannot be gamed or manipulated in negative ways. The value of some of the VCs being held in custodial wallets are directly tied to employment opportunities and professional livelyhood. Loss of a credential or to see the ecosystem manipulated could have catastrophic impacts individuals.
Finally governance stands as a risk. There is principle work being completed on VC governance and there is much more to do in this area. In some cases the technology has outpaced policies. That will be a difficult problem to tackle down the road; however, a strong VC CMRT validation contract can help inform the governance work ahead.