NFTs, Verifiable Credentials, and Picos

Colorful Shipping Containers

Listening to this Reality 2.0 podcast about NFTs with Doc Searls, Katherine Druckman, and their guest Greg Bledsoe got me thinking about NFTs. I first wrote about NFTs in 2018 regarding what was perhaps the first popular NFT: Cryptokitties. I bought a few and played with them, examined the contract code, and was thinking about how they might enable self-sovereignty, or not. I wrote:

[E]ach kitty has some interesting properties:

  • Each Kitty is distinguishable from all the rest and has a unique identity and existence
  • Each kitty is owned by someone. Specifically, it is controlled by whoever has the private keys associated with the address that the kitty is tied to.

This is a good description of the properties of NFTs in general. Notice that nothing here says that NFTs have to be about art, or collectibles, although that's the primary use case right now that's generating so much hype. Cryptokitties were more interesting than most of the NFT use cases right now because the smart contract allowed them to be remixed to produce new kitties (for a fee).

Suppose I rewrote the quote from my post on Cryptokitties like this:

[E]ach verifiable credential (VC) has some interesting properties:

  • Each VC is distinguishable from all the rest and has a unique identity and existence
  • Each VC is owned by someone. Specifically, it is controlled by whoever has the private keys associated with the address that the VC was issued to.

Interesting, no? So, if these properties are true for both NFTs and verifiable credentials, what's the difference? The primary difference is that right now, we envision VC issuers to be institutions, like the DMV, your bank, or employer. And institutions are centralized. In contrast, because NFTs are created using a smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain, we think of them as decentralized. But, not so fast. As I noted in my post on Cryptokitties, you can't assume an NFT is decentralized without examining the smart contract.

There is one problem with CryptoKitties as a model of self-sovereignty: the CryptoKitty smart contract has a "pause" function that can be executed by certain addresses. This is probably a protection against bugs—no one wants to be the next theDAO—but it does provide someone besides the owner with a way to shut it all down.

I have no idea who that someone is and can't hold them responsible for their behavior—I'd guess it's someone connected with CryptoKitties. Whoever has control of these special addresses could shutdown the entire enterprise. I do not believe, based on the contract structure, that they could take away individual kitties; it's an all or nothing proposition. Since they charged money for setting this up, there's likely some contract law that could be used for recourse.

So, without looking at the code for the smart contract, it's hard to say that a particular NFT is decentralized or not. They may be just as centralized as your bank1.

To examine this more closely, let's look at a property title, like a car title, as an example. The DMV could decide to issue car titles as verifiable credentials tomorrow. And the infrastructure to support it is all there: well-supported open source code, companies to provide issuing software and wallets, and specifications and protocols for interoperability2. Nothing has to change politically for that to happen.

The DMV could also issue car titles as NFTs. With an NFT, I'd prove I own the car by exercising control over the private key that controls the NFT representing the car title. The state might do this to provide more automation for car transfers. Here too, they'd have to find an infrastructure provider to help them, ensure they had a usable wallet to store the title, and interact with the smart contract. I don't know how interoperable this would be.

Suppose I want to sell the car. With a verifiable credential, the state would still be there, revoking the VC representing my title to the car and issuing a new VC to the buyer when the title transfers. The record of who owns what is still the database at the DMV. With NFTs we can get rid of that database. So, selling my car now becomes something that might happen in a decentralized way, without the state as an intermediary. Note that they could do this and still retain a regulatory interest in car titling if they control the smart contract.

But, the real value of issuing a car title as an NFT would be if it were done using a smart contract in a way that decentralized car titles. If you imagine a world of self-driving cars that own and sell themselves, then that's interesting. You could also imagine that we want to remove the DMV from the business of titling cars altogether. That's a big political lift, but if you dream of a world with much smaller government, then NFT-based car titles might be a way to do that. But I think it's a ways off. So, we could use NFTs for car titles, but right now there's not much point besides the automation.

You can also imagine a much more decentralized future for verifiable credentials. There's no reason a smart contract couldn't issue and revoke verifiable credentials according to rules embodied in the code. Sphereon has an integration between verifiable credentials and the Digital Assets Markup Language (DAML), a smart contract language. Again, how decentralized the application is depends on the smart contract, but decentralized, institution-independent verifiable credentials are possible.

A decade ago, Lucas, Ballay, and McManus wrote Trillions: Thriving in the Emerging Information Ecology. One of the ideas they talked about was something they called a persistent data object (PDO). I was intrigued by persistent data objects because of the work we'd been doing at Kynetx on personal clouds. In applying the idea of PDOs, I quickly realized that what we were doing was much more than data because our persistent data objects also encapsulated code and the name persistent compute objects, or picos was born.

An NFT is one possible realization of Trillion's PDOs. So are verifiable credentials. Both are persistent containers for data. They are both capable of inspiring confidence that the data they contain has fidelity and, perhaps, a trustworthy provenance. A pico is an agent. Picos can:

  • have a wallet that holds and exchanges NFTs and credentials according to the rules encapsulated in the pico.
  • be programmed to interact with the smart contract for an NFT to perform the legal operations.
  • be programmed to receive, hold, and present verifiable credentials according to the proper DIDCommm protocols.3

Relationship between NFTs, verifiable credentials, and picos
Relationship between NFTs, verifiable credentials, and picos (click to enlarge)

NFTs are currently in their awkward, stage. Way too much hype and many myopic use cases. But I think they'll grow to have valuable uses in creating more decentralized, trustworthy data objects. If you listen to the reality 2.0 podcast starting about 56 minutes, Greg, Katherine, and Doc get into some of those. Greg's starting with games—a good place, I think. Supply chain is another promising area. If you need decentralized, automated, trustworthy, persistent data containers, then NFTs fit the bill.

People who live in a country with a strong commitment to the rule of law, might ask why decentralizing things like titles and supply chains is a good idea. But that's not everyone's reality. Blockchains and NFTs can inspire confidence in systems that would otherwise be too costly or untrustworthy otherwise. Picos are a great way to create distributed systems of entity-oriented compute nodes that are capable of using PDOs.


  1. Note that I'm not saying that Cryptokitties is as centralized as your bank. Just that without looking at the code, you can't tell.
  2. Yeah, I know that interop is still a work in progress. But at least it's in progress, not ignored.
  3. These are not capabilities that picos presently have, but they do support DIDComm messaging. Want to help add these to picos? Contact me.

Photo Credit: Colorful Shipping Containers from frank mckenna (CC0)

Ugh! There's an App for That!


I traveled to Munich for European Identity Conference several weeks ago—my first international trip since before the pandemic. Post-pandemic travel can be confusing, international travel even more so. To get into Germany, I needed to prove I had been vaccinated. To get back in the US, I had to show evidence of a negative Covid-19 test conducted no more than three days prior to my arrival in the US. Figuring out how to present these, which forms to fill out, and who cared led to a bit of stress.

Once in Munich, venturing out of the hotel had its own surprises. Germany, or maybe just Munich, has implemented a contract tracing system. Apparently there's one or more apps you can use, but I had a tough time figuring that out. Restaurants were spotty in their demands and enforcement. After showing them my US vaccination card, one small place just threw up their hands and said "just come in and eat!"

You'd think all this would have been a perfect opportunity for me to use a health pass app, but whose? None of the ones I knew about had a way for me to get my vaccination status into them. Delta airlines didn't accept any that I could tell. Munich has its own—or three. In short, it's an interoperability nightmare.

Apple recently announced that you can store your Covid-19 vaccination card in the Health app. And soon you'll be able to put it in the phone's wallet app. Android users have similar options. But there's also hundreds (really) of apps for doing the same thing and each has its own tiny ecosystem. PC Magazine even wrote a guide with every US state's chosen app.

The size of Apple and Android may help solve this problem since they already represent huge ecosystems. But then we're stuck with whatever solutions they provide and we may not like what we get. You don't have to look far to see BigTech solutions that have left people scratching their head. We can't continue to count on the benevolence of our erstwhile dictators.

Writing in Communications of the ACM, Cory Doctorow discusses what can be done and hits upon a conceptually simple answer: enforce interoperability.

[Interoperability] is the better way. Instead of enshrining Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft as the Internet's permanent overlords and then striving to make them as benign as possible, we can fix the Internet by making Big Tech less central to its future.

It's possible that people will connect tools to their BigTech accounts that do ill-advised things they come to regret. That is kind of the point, really. After all, people can plug weird things into their car's lighter receptacles, but the world is a better place when you get to decide how to use that useful, versatile ANSI/SAE J56-compliant plug—not GM or Toyota.

By enforcing interoperability, we avoid empowering Apple, Google, or anyone else as the sole trusted repositories of health data and then hoping they'll not only do the right thing, but also have all the best ideas. We can let the hundreds of Covid-19 health pass apps thrive (or not), secure in the knowledge that people can pick the app they like from a company they trust and still have it work when they travel across borders—or just across town.

People with decision making authority can help this process by choosing the interoperable solution and avoiding closed, proprietary technology. Why are organizations like NASCIO (National Association of State CIOs), for example, not doing more to help states find, chose, and use interoperable solutions to common state IT problems? Beyond health pass applications, things like mobile drivers licenses need to be interoperable to be useful.

Fortunately, we have open-source technology, with multiple commercial providers, that can provide interoperable credentials. Verifiable credential technology and SSI tick all the checkboxes for interoperable data exchange. Several production use cases exist that can inform new projects.

In Health Passes and the Design of an Ecosystem of Ecosystems, I wrote about efforts to create interoperable health passes on principles that respect individual privacy and autonomy. Those efforts have created real apps, with real interoperability. But too many decision makers jettison interoperability in search of profit, dominance, or simply time to market. The lesson of the internet was not that it was the cheapest, easiest way to build global network. We had CompuServe for that. The lesson of the internet was that it was the best way to build a network that was generative and provided the most utility for the greatest number of people. Interoperability was the key—and still is.

Photo Credit: Apps from Pixabay (pixabay)

JSON is Robot Barf

Sick Robot

JSON is robot barf. Don't get me wrong. JSON is a fine serialization format for data and I have no problem with it in that context. My beef is with the use of JSON for configuration files, policy specs, and so on. If JSON were all we had, then we'd have to live with it. But we've been building parsers for almost 70 years now. The technology is well understood. There are multiple libraries in every language for parsing. And yet, even very mature, well supported frameworks and platforms persist in using JSON instead of a human-friendly notation.

When a system requires programmers to use JSON, what they're effectively asking developers to use an "abstract" syntax instead of a "concrete" syntax. Here's what I mean. This is a function definition in concrete syntax:

Concrete Syntax

And here's the same function definition expressed as an abstract syntax tree (AST) serialized as JSON:

Abstract Syntax

I don't know any programmer who'd prefer to write the abstract syntax instead of the concrete. Can you imagine an entire program expressed like that? Virtually unreadable and definitely not maintainable. Parsing can take as much as 20% of the time taken to compile code, so there's a clear performance win in using abstract syntax over concrete, but even so we, correctly, let the machine do the work.

I get that systems often start out simply with simple configuration. Some inputs are just hierarchies of data. But that often gets more complicated over time. And spending time figuring out the parser when you're excited to just get it working can feel like a burden. But taking the shortcut of making developers and others write the configuration in abstract syntax instead of letting the computer do the work is a mistake.

I'd like to say that the problem is that not enough programmers have a proper CS education, but I fear that's not true. I suspect that even people who've studied CS aren't comfortable with parsing and developing notations. Maybe it's because we treat the subject too esoterically—seemingly useful for people designing a programming language, but not much else. And students pick up on that and figure this is something, like calculus, they're unlikely to ever use IRL. What if programming langauge classes helped students learn the joy and benefit of building little languages instead?

I'm a big believer in the power of notation. And I think we too often shy away from designing the right notation for the job. As I wrote about Domain Specific Languages (DSLs) in 2007:

I'm in the middle of reading Walter Isaacson's new biography of Einstein. It's clear that notation played a major role in his ability to come up with the principle of general relativity. He demurred at first, believing that the math was for someone else to come along later and tidy up. But later in his life, after the experience of working on general relativity, Einstein became an ardent convert.

Similarly, there is power in notation for computing tasks. Not merely the advantage of parameterized execution but in it's ability to allow us to think about problems, express them so that other's can clearly and unambiguously see our thoughts, and collaborate to create joint solutions. What's more, languages can be versioned. GUI configurations are hard to version. Notation has advantages even when it's not executed.

The DSL becomes the focal point for design activities. The other day, I was having a discussion with three friends about a particular feature. Pulling out pencil and paper and writing what the DSL would need to look like to support the feature helped all of us focus and come up with solutions. Without such a tool, I'm not sure how we would have communicated the issues or whether we'd have all had the same conception of them and the ultimate solution we reached.

As this points out, clear notations have advantages beyond being easier to write and understand. They also provide the means to easily share and think about the problem. I think system designers would be better off if we spent more time thinking about the notation developers will use when they configure and use our systems, making it clear and easy to read and write. Good notation is a thinking tool, not just a way to control the system. The result will be increased expressiveness, design leverage, and freedom.

Photo Credit: Sick Android from gfk DSGN (Pixabay)

Toothbrush Identity

Philips Sonicare BrushSync Logo

I have a Philips Sonicare toothbrush. One of the features is a little yellow light that comes on to tell me that the head needs to be changed. The first time the light came on, I wondered how I would reset it once I got a new toothbrush head. I even googled it to find out.

Turns out I needn't have bothered. Once I changed the head the light went off. This didn't happen when I just removed the old head and put it back on. The toothbrush heads have a unique identity that the toothbrush recognizes. This identity is not only used to signal head replacement, but also to put the toothbrush into different modes based on the type of head installed.

Philips calls this BrushSync, but it's just RFID technology underneath the branding. Each head has an RFID chip embedded in it and the toothbrush body reads the data off the head and adjusts its internal state in the appropriate way.

I like this use case RFID because it's got clear benefits for both Philips and their customers. Philips sells more toothbrush heads—so the internet of things (IoT) use case is clearly aligned with business goals. Customers get reminders to replace their toothbrush head and can reset the reminder by simply doing what they'd do anyway—switch the head

There aren't many privacy concerns at present. But as more and more products include RFID chips, you could imagine scanners on garbage trucks that correlate what gets used and thrown out with an address. I guess we need garbage cans that can disable RFID chips when they're thrown away.

I was recently talking to a friend of mine, Eric Olafson, who is a founding investor in Riot. Riot is another example of how thoughtfully applied RFID-based identifiers can solve business and customer problems. Riot creates tech that companies can use for RFID-based, in-store inventory management. This solves a big problem for stores that often don't know what inventory they have on hand. With Riot, a quick scan of the store each morning updates the inventory management system, showing where the inventory data is out of sync with the physical inventory. As more and more of us go to the physical store because the app told us they had the product we wanted, it's nice to know the app isn't lying. Riot puts the RFID on the tag, not the clothing, dealing with many of the privacy concerns.

Both BrushSync and Riot use identity to solve business problems, showing'that unique identifiers on individual products can be good for business and customers alike. This speaks to the breadth of identity and its importance in areas beyond associating identifiers with people. I've noticed an uptick in discussions at IIW about identity for things and the impact that can have. The next IIW is Oct 12-14—online—join us if you're interested.

Photo Credit: SoniCare G3 from Philips USA (fair use)

Fluid Multi-Pseudonymity

Epupa Falls

In response to my recent post on Ephemeral Relationships, Emil Sotirov tweeted that this was an example of "fluid multi-pseudonymity as the norm." I love that phrase because it succinctly describes something I've been trying to explain for years.

Emil was riffing on this article in Aeon You are a network that says "Selves are not only 'networked', that is, in social networks, but are themselves networks." I've never been a fan of philosophical introspections in digital identity discussions. I just don't think they often lead to useful insights. Rather, I like what Joe Andrieu calls functional identity: Identity is how we recognize, remember, and ultimately respond to specific people and things. But this insight, that we are multiple selves, changing over time—even in the course of a day—is powerful. And as Emil points out, our real-life ephemeral relationships are an example of this fluid multi-pseudonymity.

The architectures of traditional, administrative identity systems do not reflect the fluid multi-pseudonymity of real life and consequently are mismatched to how people actually live. I frequently see calls for someone, usually a government, to solve the online identity problem by issuing everyone a permanent "identity." I put that in quotes because I hate when we use the word "identity" in that way—as if everyone has just one and once we link every body (literally) to some government issued identifier and a small number of attributes all our problems will disappear.

These calls don't often come from within the identity community. Identity professionals understand how hard this problem is and that there's no single identity for anyone. But even identity professionals use the word "identity" when they mean "account." I frequently make an ass of myself my pointing that out. I get invited to fewer meetings that way. The point is this: there is no "identity." And we don't build identity systems to manage identities (whatever those are), but, rather, relationships.

All of us, in real life and online, have multiple relationships. Many of those are pseudonymous. Many are ephemeral. But even a relationship that starts pseudonymous and ephemeral can develop into something permanent and better defined over time. Any relationship we have, even those with online services, changes over time. In short, our relationships are fluid and each is different.

Self-sovereign identity excites me because, for the first time, we have a model for online identity that can flexibly support fluid multi-pseudonymity. Decentralized identifiers and verifiable credentials form an identity metasystem capable of being the foundation for any kind of relationship: ephemeral, pseudonymous, ad hoc, permanent, personal, commercial, legal, or anything else. For details on how this all works, see my Frontiers article on the identity metasystem.

An identity metasystem that matches the fluid multi-pseudonymity inherent in how people actually live is vital for personal autonomy and ultimately human rights. Computers are coming to intermediate every aspect of our lives. Our autonomy and freedom as humans depend on how we architect this digital world. Unless we put digital systems under the control of the individuals they serve without intervening administrative authorities and make them as flexible as our real-lives demand, the internet will undermine the quality of life it is meant to bolster. The identity metasystem is the foundation for doing that.

Photo Credit: Epupa Falls from Travel Trip Journey (none)

Seeing Like the TSA

TSA Screening at SL Airport

I just flew for the first time in 16 months. In that time, Salt Lake International Airport got a new terminal, including an update to the TSA screening area. The new screening area has been touted as a model of efficiency, featuring bin stations for people to load their bags, electronics, belts, and shoes into bins that they then push onto a conveyor. The bins are handled automatically and everything is sunshine and joy. Except it isn't.

The new system is perfect so long as the people using it are too. The first problem is that unless your at the last bin station, the conveyor in front of you is constantly full and it's hard to get your bin onto the conveyor. And if you've got more than one bin to load, they are separated from each other because the loading station isn't big enough for two. People just don't conform to the TSA's ideal!

But the real problem is that people forget things in their pockets or don't take off their belt. In the olden days, the TSA had little bowls. You'd throw your stuff in one, put it on the belt, and be on your way. Now, there's no easy way to accommodate forgotten things except to go back to a bin loading station and put them in a big bin, clogging the conveyor even more. Three people in line ahead of me at the scanner forgot something, causing all kinds of delays. The TSA people were even telling them to just hold them in the scanner and taking them from them to hold while the scan was completed. Because there's no good way to deal with forgotten items, everyone is forced to improvise, but the system is rigid and doesn't easily accommodate improvisation.

The situation reminded me of the story James C. Scott tells in the opening of Seeing Like a State where forestry officials planted neat, efficient rows of trees instead of letting the forest take its natural path. The end result was less yield from the forest, but happier foresters who could now see every tree. Scott's point is that bureaucracy aims for legibility in order to serve its own purposes—and usually fails in that effort. The primary reason states have wanted legibility of citizens is taxes (and, historically, conscription). But once you have legibility, the temptation to extend it to other uses is too great to resist. In this case, the TSA has ordered the screening process and made it legible to the screeners, but made no provision for outliers. If no one forgets anything and the system is lightly loaded, it should work great. Of course, that's not the real world.

IT people are bureaucrats in their own way. We build and operate the systems that people use to do their jobs and live their lives. We strive for legibility in order to make the software simpler for us, even if it doesn't serve the users quite as well. Universities are decentralized places with lots of innovative people pursuing their own goals. They are more feudal than corporate. I've often heard university IT people complain about this reality because it makes their life harder. If you're a professor, you'd like to use whichever LMS suits your particular needs. But that's not very legible. If you're a university IT person, you'd like to force all faculty to use the standard LMS that the university chose. Neat and orderly, but it squeezes the innovation out of the university one drop at a time.

Life is messy. People are forgetful, disorganized, and, relatedly, innovative. Bureaucracy desperately wants legibility so that the rules are followed, the processes perform, and the bureaucrat's life is made easy. Building systems that support decentralized workflows and individual decisions, without getting in the way, is hard. And letting people be people can be frustrating when it's causing you headaches. We'll never build systems that support an authentic, operationalized digital existence until we stop trying to fit people's decentralized lives into our neat, ordered, legible software.

Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed by James C. Scott

In this wide-ranging and original book, James C. Scott analyzes failed cases of large-scale authoritarian plans in a variety of fields. Centrally managed social plans misfire, Scott argues, when they impose schematic visions that do violence to complex interdependencies that are not—and cannot—be fully understood. Further, the success of designs for social organization depends upon the recognition that local, practical knowledge is as important as formal, epistemic knowledge. The author builds a persuasive case against "development theory" and imperialistic state planning that disregards the values, desires, and objections of its subjects. He identifies and discusses four conditions common to all planning disasters: administrative ordering of nature and society by the state; a "high-modernist ideology" that places confidence in the ability of science to improve every aspect of human life; a willingness to use authoritarian state power to effect large- scale interventions; and a prostrate civil society that cannot effectively resist such plans.

Photo Credit: Security from Anelise Bergin (none)

Life Will Find a Way

Apricot Tree

Last summer, I decided to kill this apricot tree. We weren't using the apricots, it was making a mess, and I wanted to do something else with the spot it's in. So, I cut off the branches, drilled holes in the stumps, and poured undiluted Round-Up into them. And yet, you'll notice that there's a spot on one branch that has sprouted shoots and leaves this summer.

My first thought was that the tree was struggling to live. But then, I realized that I was anthropomorphizing it. In fact, the tree has no higher brain function, it's not struggling to do anything. Instead, what the picture shows is the miracle of decentralization.

Despite my overall success in killing the tree, some cells didn't get the message. They were able to source water and oxygen to grow. They didn't need permission or direction from central authority. They don't even know or care that they're part of a tree. The cells are programmed to behave in specific ways and conditions were such that the cells on that part of the branch were able to execute their programming. Left alone, they might even produce fruit and manage to reproduce. Amazing resiliance.

I've written before about the decentralized behavior of bees. Like the apricot tree, there is no higher brain function in a bee hive. Each bee goes about its work according to its programming. And yet, the result is a marvelously complex living organism (the hive) that is made up of tens of thousands of individual bees, each doing their own thing, but in a way that behaves consistently, reaches consensus about complex tasks, and achieves important goals.

A few years ago, I read The Vital Question by Nick Lane. The book is a fascinating read about the way energy plays a vital role in how life develops and indeed how evolution progresses. I'm still in awe of the mechanisms necessary to provide energy for even a single-celled organism, let alone something as complex as a human being, a bee hive, or even an apricot tree.

Life succeeds because it's terrifically decentralized. I find that miraculous. Humans have a tough time thinking about decentralized systems and designing them in ways that succeed. The current work in blockchains and interest in decentralization gives me hope that we'll design more systems that use decentralized methods to achieve their ends. The result will be an online world that is less fragile, perhaps even anti-fragile, than what we have now.

The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life by Nick Lane

For two and a half billion years, from the very origins of life, single-celled organisms such as bacteria evolved without changing their basic form. Then, on just one occasion in four billion years, they made the jump to complexity. All complex life, from mushrooms to man, shares puzzling features, such as sex, which are unknown in bacteria. How and why did this radical transformation happen? The answer, Lane argues, lies in energy: all life on Earth lives off a voltage with the strength of a lightning bolt. Building on the pillars of evolutionary theory, Lane’s hypothesis draws on cutting-edge research into the link between energy and cell biology, in order to deliver a compelling account of evolution from the very origins of life to the emergence of multicellular organisms, while offering deep insights into our own lives and deaths.

Clean Sheets and Strategy


Suppose you're in the hotel business. One of the things you have to do is make sure customers have clean sheets. If you don't change the sheets or launder them properly, you're probably not going to stay in business long. The bad news is that clean sheets are expensive and they don't differentiate you very much—all your competitors have clean sheets. You're stuck.

Consider the following graph plotting the cost of any given business decision against the competitive advantage it brings:

Feature Cost vs Differentiation
Feature Cost vs Differentiation (click to enlarge)

To the right in this diagram are the things we'd call strategic, representing features or practices that differentiate the organization from its competitors. The bottom half of the diagram contains the things that are relatively less expensive. Clearly if you're making a decision on what features to implement, you want to be in the lower right quadrant: low cost and high differentiation. Do those first.

The red quadrant seems like the last place you'd look for features, or is it? Think about clean sheets. As I noted earlier, clean sheets cost a lot of money and everyone has them, so there's not much competitive advantage in having them. But there's a huge competitive disadvantage if you don't. No one can do without clean sheets. Businesses are filled with things like clean sheets. For IT, things like availability, security, networks, and deployment are all clean sheets. Doing these well can differentiate you from those who don't, but they're not strategic. You still need a strategy.

How can you discover the things that really matter? I'm a fan of domain driven design. Domain driven design is a tool for looking at the various domains your business is engaged in and then determining which are core (differentiating), supporting, or merely generic. The things you identify as core are strategic—places you can differentiate yourself. This helps because now you know where to build and where to buy. Generic domains aren't unimportant (think HR or finance, for example), they're simply not strategic. And therefore buying those features is likely going to give you high availability and feature fit for far less money than doing it yourself.

On the other hand, domains that are core are the places you differentiate yourself. When you look at your organization's values, mission, and objectives, the core domains ought to directly support them. If you outsource these, then anyone else can do what you're doing. Core, strategic activities are places where it makes sense to build rather than buy. Spend your time and resources there. But don't neglect the sheets.

Domain-Driven Design Distilled by Vaughn Vernon

Concise, readable, and actionable, Domain-Driven Design Distilled never buries you in detail–it focuses on what you need to know to get results. Vaughn Vernon, author of the best-selling Implementing Domain-Driven Design, draws on his twenty years of experience applying DDD principles to real-world situations. He is uniquely well-qualified to demystify its complexities, illuminate its subtleties, and help you solve the problems you might encounter.

Photo Credit: Sheets from pxfuel (Free for commercial use)

Ephemeral Relationships

Ghost Trees

In real life, we often interact with others—both people and institutions—with relative anonymity. For example, if I go the store and use cash to buy a coke there is no exchange of identity information. Even if I use a credit card it's rarely the case that the entire transaction happens under the administrative authority of the identity system inherent in the credit card. Only the financial part of the transaction takes place in that identity system. This is true of most interactions in real life.

I don't have an account at the local grocery store where I store my address, credit card, and other information so that each transaction is linked to a record about me. True, many businesses have loyalty programs and use those to collect information about customers, but those are optional. And going without one doesn't significantly inconvenience me. In fact, the point of the credit card system is that it avoids long-lived relationships between any of the parties except the customer (or merchant) and their bank.

In real life, we do without identity systems for most things. You don't have to identify yourself to the movie theater to watch a movie or log into some administrative system to sit in a restaurant and have a private conversation with friends. In real life, we act as embodied, independent agents. Our physical presence and the laws of physics have a lot to do with our ability to function with workable anonymity across many domains.

One of the surprising things about identity in the physical world is that so many of the relationships are ephemeral rather than long-lived. While the ticket taker at the movies and the server at the restaurant certainly "identify" patrons, they forget them as soon as the transaction is complete. And the identification is likely pseudonymous (e.g. "the couple at table four" rather than "Phillip and Lynne Windley"). These interactions are effectively anonymous.

Of course, in the digital world, very few meaningful transactions are done outside of some administrative identity system. There are several reasons why identity is so important in the digital world. But we've accepted long-lived relationships with full legibility of patrons as the default on the web.

Some of that is driven by convenience. I like storing my credit cards and shipping info at Amazon because it's convenient. I like that they know what books I've bought so I don't buy the same book more than once (yeah, I'm that guy). But what if I could get that convenience without any kind of account at Amazon at all? That's the promise of verifiable credentials and self-sovereign identity.

You can imagine an ecommerce company that keeps no payment or address information on customers, but is still able to process their orders and send the merchandise. If my shipping information and credit card information are stored as verifiable credentials in a digital wallet I control, I can easily provide these to whatever web site I need to as needed. No need to have them stored. And we demonstrated way back in 2009 a way to augment results from a web site with a self-sovereign data store. That could tell me what I already own as I navigate a site.

There's no technical reason we need long-lived relationships for most of our web interactions. That doesn't mean we won't want some for convenience, but they ought to be optional, like the loyalty program at the supermarket, rather than required for service. Our digital lives can be as private as our physical lives if we choose for them to be. We don't have to allow companies to surveil us. And the excuse that they surveil us to provide better service is just that—an excuse. The real reason they surveil us is because it's profitable.

Photo Credit: Ghost Trees from David Lienhard (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Smart Property

Evolution of Things

I just listened to this excellent podcast by Vinay Gupta about what he calls "smart property." Vinay released a book last year call The Future of Stuff that covers this topic in more detail.

The Future of Stuff by Vinay Gupta

Where and who do we want to be? How might we get there? What might happen if we stay on our current course? The Future of Stuff asks what kind of world will we live in when every item of property has a digital trace, when nothing can be lost and everything has a story. Will property and ownership become as fluid as film is today: summoned on demand, dismissed with a swipe? What will this mean for how we buy, rent, share and dispose of stuff? About what our stuff says about us? And how will this impact on us, on manufacturing and supply, and on the planet?

The idea is similar to what Bruce Sterling has called Spimes and what we've been building on top of picos for over a decade.

Smart property goes well beyond the internet of things and connected devices to imagine a world where every thing is not just online, but has a digital history and can interact with other smart things to accomplish whatever goals their owners desire. Things are members of communities and ecosystems, working through programmable agents.

A world of smart things is decentralized–it has to be. While Vinay talks of blockchains and smart contracts, I work on picos. Likely both, or some version of them, are necessary to achieve the end goal of a sustainable internet of things to replace the anemic, unsustainable CompuServe of Things we're being offered now.

Going Further

We've built a platform on top of picos for managing things called Manifold. This is a successor to SquareTag, if you've been following along. You can use Manifold to create spimes or digital twins for your things. Some of the built-in applications allow you to find lost stuff using QR code stickers or write notes about your things using a journaling app. You could build others since the application is meant to be programmable and extendable. I primarily use it as a personal inventory system.

Photo Credit: Spimes Not Things. Creating A Design Manifesto For A Sustainable Internet of Things from Michael Stead, Paul Coulton & Joseph Lindley (Fair Use)