“`html
The cryptocurrency sector is not unfamiliar with controversy, yet only a few initiatives have attracted as much attention as Sam Altman’s World, previously referred to as Worldcoin.
Claiming to authenticate human individuality through iris scans and distribute its WLD token worldwide, World positions itself as a means for financial inclusion. Nonetheless, detractors contend that the project’s biometric techniques are intrusive, excessively centralized, and contrary to the principles of decentralization and digital confidentiality.
At the core of the critique is the assertion that biometric identity systems cannot be genuinely decentralized when they depend on proprietary hardware, closed verification methods, and centralized oversight of data channels.
“Decentralization transcends technical architecture,” Shady El Damaty, co-founder of Holonym Foundation, remarked to Cointelegraph. “It embodies a philosophy that values user authority, privacy, and self-determination. World’s biometric framework fundamentally contradicts this belief.”
El Damaty posited that even with tools like multiparty computation (MPC) and zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs, World’s dependence on custom hardware — the Orb — and centralized code distribution undermines the decentralization it purports to uphold.
“This is intentional to achieve their objectives of uniquely identifying each human. This consolidation of authority threatens to create a single point of failure and control, eroding the very essence of decentralization,” he stated.
When contacted for comments, a representative for World refuted these claims. “World does not utilize centralized biometric systems,” they stated, indicating that the World App is non-custodial, meaning users retain control over their digital assets and World IDs.
The project mentioned that once the Orb produces an iris code, the “iris image will be transmitted as an end-to-end encrypted data package to your phone and will be promptly erased from the Orb.” The iris code, they asserted, is handled with anonymizing multiparty computation so “no personal information is retained.”
Evin McMullen, co-founder of Privado ID and Billions.Network, mentioned that World’s biometric model is not “inherently at odds” with decentralization but faces specific hurdles concerning data centralization, trust assumptions, and governance.
Related: Sam Altman’s World secures $135M from Andreessen, Bain, to augment its network
A trend of technological overreach?
El Damaty also drew a comparison between OpenAI’s extensive scraping of “unconsented user data” and World’s acquisition of biometric information.
He contended that both exemplify a pattern of aggressive data collection framed as innovation, cautioning that such actions risk undermining privacy and normalizing surveillance in the name of progress.
“The irony in this scenario is hard to overlook,” El Damaty suggested. “OpenAI established its foundation by scraping a vast amount of unconsented user data to train its models, and now Worldcoin is adopting that same aggressive data acquisition strategy within the domain of biometric identity.”
In 2023, a class-action lawsuit filed in California accused OpenAI and Microsoft of gathering 300 billion words from the web without consent, incorporating personal data from millions of users, including children.
In 2024, a group of Canadian media outlets, including The Canadian Press and CBC, sued OpenAI for allegedly utilizing their content without permission to train ChatGPT, alleging copyright violation.
World, however, rejects this analogy, emphasizing that it is a distinct entity from OpenAI. The firm asserts that it neither sells nor retains personal data, citing its application of privacy-preserving technologies like multiparty computation and zero-knowledge proofs.
The scrutiny also encompasses World’s user onboarding process. The initiative claims it guarantees informed consent through translated guides, an in-app Learn module, pamphlets, and a Help Center.
Nevertheless, skeptics remain unconvinced. “Individuals in developing nations, who World… has chiefly targeted thus far, are more susceptible to bribery and often do not comprehend the risks tied to ‘selling’ this personal information,” El Damaty cautioned.
Several international regulators have expressed concerns regarding World’s operations since its launch in July 2023, with governments such as Germany, Kenya, and Brazil expressing concerns over potential threats to the security of users’ biometric information.
In a recent setback, the company encountered challenges in Indonesia after local officials temporarily halted its registration certificates on May 5.
Related: ‘Humans can tell when it’s a human’ — Community ridicules Worldcoin’s Orb Mini
The danger of digital exclusion
As biometric systems like World’s gain prominence, concerns are surfacing regarding its long-term effects. While the company promotes its framework as inclusive, critics claim that relying on iris scans to access services could exacerbate global inequalities.
“When biometric information becomes essential for accessing fundamental services, it effectively creates a two-tiered society,” stated El Damaty. “Those willing (or forced) to surrender their most sensitive data gain access… while those who decline… are marginalized.”
World asserted that its protocol does not mandate biometric enrollment for basic participation. “You can still utilize an unverified World ID for
“`
“some objectives even if you don’t access an Orb,” it stated, adding that the platform utilizes ZKPs to avert linking actions back to any particular ID or biometric information.
There are also apprehensions that World could transform into a surveillance instrument — particularly in authoritarian regimes — by consolidating biometric information in a manner that might invite exploitation by influential entities.
World refutes these allegations, claiming that its ID framework is “open source, permissionless,” and created so that even governmental applications cannot associate a user’s actions with their biometric data.
The discussion also encompasses governance. While World asserts its protocol is advancing toward increased decentralization — emphasizing open-source contributions and the governance segment of its white paper — critics maintain that genuine user ownership is still absent.
“We need to construct systems that permit individuals to validate their humanity without establishing centralized stores of biometric or personal information,” stated El Damaty. “This involves adopting zero-knowledge proofs, decentralized governance, and open standards that empower individuals, rather than corporations.”
Related: Sam Altman’s eye-scanning crypto initiative World launches in the US
The necessity for secure identity systems
The need for developing secure identity systems isn’t without justification. As artificial intelligence becomes more advanced, the distinctions between human and non-human entities online are fading.
“Concerns at the intersection of AI and identity are not confined to any singular type of government system or region,” Privado ID’s McMullen remarked. She asserted that without dependable verification for both humans and AI agents, digital environments face escalating threats—from misinformation and fraud to national security risks.
“This poses a national security dilemma, where unaccountable, unverifiable non-human actors may now interact with global systems and networks, and legacy infrastructures are not designed for these types of verification and contextual reasoning,” McMullen noted.
Magazine: Bitcoin bears target $69K, CZ dismisses WLF ‘fixer’ rumors: Hodler’s Digest, May 18 – 24