ORBIS.ID
Your accountDevelopersOrganisationAdmin Portal
You are on Anyone PUBorbis.id

TRUST · THE DECLARATION

The Declaration made ten promises. This is the scoreboard.

Zero of the ten Articles are fully honoured by this system today. Four are partly honoured and link the endpoint that proves the part.

What the Declaration is.

The Universal Declaration of Digital Independence was written by Jonatan Schmidt as ten Articles, each meant to be scored against what a running system actually proves rather than against what it intends. The same document carries the author's own six published critiques of the whole idea — a founding document that argues with itself is a different kind of document than one that only asks to be believed.

How to read what follows.

Ten Articles, each a promise in the author's own document, paraphrased here rather than quoted at length. Beside each is the one thing this page can add that a founding document cannot: what the running system actually does about it, as of this session, with an endpoint attached wherever one exists. partial means part of the promise is real and the note says which part. not-yet means none of it is built.

The ten Articles, scored.

  1. I

    Universal Self-Sovereign Identity

    partial

    Every person has an inalienable right to a self-sovereign digital identity, built on open standards and resistant to erasure, with special protection for people at risk.

    The anchor half is real: a did:web document resolves from any machine, no registry in the middle. The half that matters most is not — nobody controls an identity here yet, because no wallet is served and no person holds a credential. Protection for people at risk does not exist as a feature. /.well-known/did.json

  2. II

    Data as Personal and Cultural Heritage

    partial

    Personal data is both individual property and shared heritage; every use needs ongoing, revocable consent; communities govern data that affects them collectively.

    A signed status list is published and fetchable — but that withdraws a credential the issuer minted, which is not the same thing as a person withdrawing consent, and no consent receipt exists on this cell. Selective disclosure gives the purpose-limitation limb a real structural answer — one claim disclosed, the rest withheld — but it is declared, not witnessed, since nothing has been issued to disclose. /status/1

  3. III

    Knowledge Commons and Creator Justice

    not-yet

    Creators keep rights to their work through transparent registries; a knowledge commons protects what humanity holds in common; the right to repair is universal.

    Nothing in this system addresses creator rights or a knowledge commons. What would make it true: a credential type for authorship with a public, resolvable registry entry. No such type exists.

  4. IV

    Health Sovereignty

    not-yet

    A person's health data belongs to them first, portable and controllable; medical AI is equitable; traditional medical knowledge is protected rather than appropriated.

    No health credential type exists on this cell and no health data passes through it. The first limb needs a health credential a person holds on their own device — which needs the wallet that does not exist yet.

  5. V

    Economic Inclusion and Justice

    not-yet

    Financial systems are redesigned for universal access and fair value distribution; decentralized and cooperative models dismantle exclusion.

    This cell moves no money and holds no economic rail. The Article is a commitment of the wider estate, not a property of this trust plane.

  6. VI

    Truth, Transparency, and Information Integrity

    partial

    Information systems prioritize truth over engagement; ranking and amplification algorithms are open to public audit; critical digital literacy is a universal right.

    The public-audit limb is honoured, applied to ourselves rather than to a media ecosystem: deterministic conformance vectors anyone can recompute offline, a register that names what does not work, and a withdrawal ledger recording a claim this site published, found false, and corrected. There is no ranking or amplification algorithm here to audit, and the media and literacy limbs sit outside what a trust plane can honour. /conformance/vectors

  7. VII

    Algorithmic Justice and Transparency

    not-yet

    Automated decisions affecting a life must be explainable and open to challenge; no autonomous system decides life-altering matters without human oversight.

    No automated decision system runs on this cell, so there is nothing here to explain or appeal. Partner admission is a human decision, recorded in a tamper-evident chain — a start on accountability, not a fulfilment of the Article.

  8. VIII

    Digital Commons and Infrastructure Justice

    partial

    Digital infrastructure is a public utility; open protocols built through inclusive processes form the backbone of the shared digital world, not corporate fiat.

    The open-protocol limb is honoured and countable: every protocol on this wire is a multi-stakeholder standard, not a corporate one — W3C DID Core, IETF RFC 7638 and 9116, OpenID4VCI. And the verification plane needs no authentication by construction, measured directly against this cell on 2026-08-30: 251 of 582 published operations require no credential at all. The universal-access and shared-spectrum limbs are not this platform’s to claim.

  9. IX

    Cognitive Liberty and Attention Rights

    not-yet

    Every person has a right to cognitive liberty and protection from psychological exploitation; technologies that touch neural processes face the strictest limits.

    There is no attention surface here to honour or violate. The nearest thing this site can offer is negative: no tracker and no analytics script runs on these pages, so reading them is not measured.

  10. X

    Collective Digital Self-Governance

    not-yet

    Power in digital systems must ultimately reside with the people it affects, through governance that transcends both corporate and state control.

    This platform is governed by its owner, not by the people it affects. Saying so plainly is the only honest position available while that is true. The closest thing to the Article on offer is the exit: an issuer runs under its own domain, so leaving costs one DNS record and no credential already issued stops working.

Paraphrased from the Declaration as published at id.orbis.id/declaration, each Article's score cross-checked against the source's own tally: 4 partial, 6 not yet, the rest fully honoured by neither reading. The operation count under Article VIII was measured directly against id.orbis.id/openapi.json this session, not copied from the source page.

The honest case against this whole idea.

The same author published six critiques of self-sovereign identity as a pattern, before this platform existed to be measured against them. They are paraphrased here because a page that only argues its own side is not worth reading: a design that needs a smartphone can deepen the gap between who has one and who does not; individual control over identity is a Western frame that does not map cleanly onto more relational understandings of who a person is; the pattern risks treating a problem of power as if it were only a problem of engineering; a corporate actor could capture it and ship something "self-sovereign" in name while keeping control where it already sits; reducing day-to-day dependence on a central authority still leaves open who governs the protocols underneath; and privacy by design does not stop a state from mandating a backdoor through regulation instead of through the wire.

Where this platform sits against those six today, plainly: the digital-divide critique lands — this design needs a smartphone, and there is no answer yet for someone without one. The governance critique lands hardest, and Article X above is scored not-yet for exactly that reason: this platform is governed by its owner. The co-option critique is the one the architecture answers best — an issuer runs under its own domain, so leaving costs one DNS record, and nothing an issuer minted before it left stops working.

Before you go any further.

The ten Articles have no row of their own in the register this build reads from — the register measures platform capabilities, not the founding document's individual promises, and the two have not yet been mapped to each other.

  • PLANNED A wallet a person installs from an app store. wallet-native You cannot hold a credential on a phone you own. Everything a person would do with a proof waits behind this.
  • LIVE Publishes deterministic vectors a third party can recompute offline to check their implementation against ours conformance-vectors

The register holds 17 live · 2 partial · 2 planned · 5 not yet.

2 of the 4 capabilities this page depends on have no row in the register yet, so this page will not print a state for them. They are named rather than dropped, because a slice that silently shortens itself is the same defect as a claim with no receipt.

  • did-web-anchor
  • revocation

The register route serves, but it carries no row for these yet. List what it does carry: 

curl -s https://id.orbis.id/api/site/register | jq -r '.entries[].slug'

Straight answers.

Is any Article fully honoured today?
No. Zero of the ten are.
Is the text above the Articles themselves, word for word?
No. Above is this page's own paraphrase of what each Article promises, not a reproduction of the founding document's exact clauses. A page that pastes another document's prose wholesale is not this site's voice, and the paraphrase carries the same score the source document earns either way.
Is a partial score the same as a passing one?
No. "Partly honoured" means part of it works and the rest of this section says which part, with an endpoint attached. It is a smaller claim than "honoured," on purpose.

Zero of ten. That is the score, and we published the scoreboard anyway — along with the six strongest arguments against the whole idea, written by the person who wrote the Declaration. A founding document that argues with itself is a different kind of document from one that only asks to be believed.

Do not trust us. Check us.