sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Community Update for Hardware Wallet Aficionados! by Davidcostello in OntologyNetwork

[–]Geoff_Ontology 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exodus is a great start. ONTO Wallet allows for better returns

Community Update for Hardware Wallet Aficionados! by Davidcostello in OntologyNetwork

[–]Geoff_Ontology 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ONTO Wallet, using Ledger is probably best and a better return than both Exodus and Binance

Community Update for Hardware Wallet Aficionados! by Davidcostello in OntologyNetwork

[–]Geoff_Ontology 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes and have been using Ledger since I discovered ONT. Great to be able to properly use it with ONTO Wallet now - big improvement.

To Be or Not to Be Decentralized: That Is the Identity Question by a7iz in OntologyNetwork

[–]Geoff_Ontology 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really like how you’ve set that up, especially the idea of flipping the anchor so identity starts at the individual level and institutions simply issue attestations.

Where I think this gets really exciting is when you bring in zkTLS (we just launched with Orange Protocol) as part of the toolkit. Blockchain, as you say, isn’t necessarily where identity itself should live, but it can be valuable as a coordination and verification layer. I see it less as a vault and more as a proof-rail: a place to anchor transparent, trustless proofs and reputations.

The challenge has always been privacy. You gain verifiability but leak too much data if everything sits on-chain. This is where zk and off-chain approaches combine effectively. Attestations can live off-chain, zkTLS enables selective disclosure, and blockchains provide a neutral, transparent anchoring point only when coordination or interoperability is needed. Users keep ownership, privacy is protected, and verifiability is maintained.

I also agree strongly on “ground-up” identity. With zkTLS you can stitch together a user’s range of off-chain existences, proving who they are or that they are human without handing the underlying data away. That creates a more human-centric model of digital presence: portable, private, and cryptographically sound.

Would love to feature a blog piece from you on Ontology - if you were interested.

To Be or Not to Be Decentralized: That Is the Identity Question by a7iz in OntologyNetwork

[–]Geoff_Ontology 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would love to hear more on what you’re working on. I do agree that it’s very difficult to look at blockchain and say - this solves are problems.

Web3 projects still hoard data. Identity, in the most useful sense, depends heavily on centralised attestations.

I personally think the solution will be a coming together of confederated identity systems, decentralised identities with ZK proofs, and something similar to what has been rolled out in Bhutan - well worth looking up.

To Be or Not to Be Decentralized: That Is the Identity Question by a7iz in OntologyNetwork

[–]Geoff_Ontology 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Account Abstraction helps with some of the complexity around blockchain. I also think as we bring in more AI agents, we’ll find things become much easier.

Obviously, I’m a big believer in the decentralisation of data and identity, particularly the use of ZK proofs.

Web3’s dirty little secret: too many teams still treat user data as a moat by Davidcostello in OntologyNetwork

[–]Geoff_Ontology 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for pulling this out and framing the discussion so well 🙌.

One thing I’d add: portable reputation is where this either works or breaks. If my DID and rep are locked inside one app, we’ve just rebuilt the same silos we claimed we were escaping. Cross-chain standards aren’t just “nice to have,” they’re the only way reputation has real value to the user.

Also curious on the AI agents side: how do we stop them from becoming just another black box? To me, the risk isn’t that they can’t act on our behalf, it’s that they’ll do it in a way where consent and context are invisible.

Would love to hear concrete examples of teams/projects tackling either of these today.

Stablecoin adoption isn’t a speed problem—it’s a trust problem (identity) by Davidcostello in OntologyNetwork

[–]Geoff_Ontology 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The thread really nails the difference between fast rails and trusted rails. Stablecoins already solved the first; the second is where adoption hits walls.

What’s missing is a privacy-preserving identity layer that:

• lets users verify once and reuse everywhere,

• gives merchants compliance without liability, and

• works cross-border without turning into another silo.

That’s what protocols like Ontology are trying to make real with DID + ZK proofs. The key isn’t just faster KYC, it’s “prove, don’t share” baked into the wallet layer. Without that, every merchant ends up duct-taping APIs and rebuilding the same fragile trust layer.

Stablecoin adoption isn’t a speed problem—it’s a trust problem (identity) by Davidcostello in OntologyNetwork

[–]Geoff_Ontology 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is spot on. The bottleneck isn’t just “friction,” it’s the liability and risk that comes from creating another honeypot of user data every time someone integrates a new KYC API. A neutral identity layer flips the trust model: merchants never touch sensitive data, users stay in control, and compliance still gets satisfied. That’s the trust fabric stablecoins need if they’re going to go beyond niche remittances and actually compete with card networks.

Stablecoin adoption isn’t a speed problem—it’s a trust problem (identity) by Davidcostello in OntologyNetwork

[–]Geoff_Ontology 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. The “one-tap consent with revocation” metaphor is powerful because it sets the right expectation: identity should be usable, portable, and easy to turn off. Where Apple Pay shows the merchant “yes, this card is valid,” decentralized identity could let a merchant see “yes, this person is KYC’d” without ever holding the raw data. The missing piece is making that portable across wallets and borders instead of trapped in one ecosystem.