Jurisdiction, Digital Identity, and the Limits of the Current Web

The current world pulse: Governments are handing out digital IDs. Tech companies are streamlining logins. Banks are pushing mobile-first everything. On paper, we’re more connected than ever. But beneath the infrastructure of access, we remain users, not owners.

“Digital inclusion” gets talked about a lot. And it sounds like progress. More logins, more portals, more people connected. But inclusion into what, exactly? Give them an app, a login, a payment portal and suddenly they’re “part of the future”.

But access is not the same as control.

Identity is issued, it’s something you’re given but not something you hold. On private platforms, it’s no better. You’re present until a policy changes, or an algorithm glitches, or someone somewhere decides otherwise.

Web3 came along promising to change that. In practice, it gave us apps that don’t work across borders and wallets that freeze the moment regulation enters the room.

So maybe the divide isn’t just about who has access. Maybe it’s about who can move and carry their identity, their data, their presence — without it breaking apart at every checkpoint.

The Two-Track Internet

In Europe, eIDAS 2.0 is moving forward. The regulation mandates a bloc-wide framework for digital identity and wallets, intended to simplify everything from opening a bank account to accessing health records. It’s pitched as a tool for autonomy — one login to rule them all, managed by you.

But not everyone sees this as progress. Marietje Schaake, Director of International Policy at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center, has made some warnings in this regard: “Tech companies, in mostly invisible ways, have accumulated enormous power without counterweighing power.” While her comments focus on corporate control, the same dynamic applies to government-managed digital ID systems: inclusion may come at the cost of deeper dependence.

India’s Aadhaar system offers a parallel cautionary tale. Touted as the largest digital ID system in the world, Aadhaar links over 1.3 billion people to biometric credentials. But exclusion from the system — even due to technical glitches — has led to lost welfare benefits, denied healthcare, and other real-world consequences.

You can be fully “digitally included” and still structurally disempowered. Especially when the system is designed without real ownership baked in.

Platform Dependence Is Still the Default

Meanwhile, tech platforms maintain their grip on what identity looks like in practice. You log in through Google. You authorize payments through Apple. You manage business through Meta dashboards. Even in the crypto space, centralized exchanges and custodial wallets dominate.

You don’t think of the cost of this convenience until it hits. Content takedowns. Account bans. Censorship tied to policy shifts or government requests. Terms of service rewritten without notice. For most users, there’s no recourse. Your identity is portable only until it isn’t.

Even the Web3 world — which promised decentralization — is riddled with the same habits. Geofenced dApps, KYC-heavy DeFi protocols, bridges that collapse when jurisdictions clash. The architecture may be new, but the gatekeeping remains.

Ownership Has to Be Structural

The real promise of decentralization is in the infrastructure. If the tools you use still rely on third-party permission, your autonomy is conditional, no matter how sleek the interface looks.
That’s what makes SourceLess blockchain different. It’s redesigning the underlying systems: how identity is held, how hosting works, how credentials move.

STR Domains function as core identifiers — owned directly, fixed to cryptographic credentials, and usable across the entire SourceLess ecosystem. Being structural access points to identity, services and secure communication — not merely web addresses — they come with no expiration, no dependence on hosting companies, no recovery links tied to centralized email providers.

STR Talk provides secure communication routed through your domain, not an account managed by someone else. Identity is resolved cryptographically. Privacy is default. Conversations are direct, verifiable, and unfiltered by platform logic or moderation pipelines.

Ccoin Finance enables movement between fiat and crypto without custodial dependencies. It ties financial activity to the same identity layer — not to third-party wallets or fractured logins. The goal isn’t to replicate banking, but to give users economic tools that are usable across systems while remaining entirely self-managed.

All of this runs on an architecture designed to work across jurisdictions. Through SourceLess Europe, the system aligns with legal and financial standards like ISO 20022 while preserving individual authority. There’s no need to compromise between usability and autonomy — both are part of the same design.

Sovereignty only means something if autonomy can hold up under real-world conditions. And control needs to live at the edge of the network directly with the people using it. That’s the only place it can hold.

Digital Infrastructure Today

What we’re witnessing is the emergence of a two-tier digital reality:

• On one side, systems that offer access, efficiency, and interconnection — but keep control at the top.
• On the other, emerging ecosystems built on user-held infrastructure, where ownership isn’t conditional on approval, subscription, or citizenship.

If the first wave of the internet was about getting online, and the second was about interaction, this next phase is about infrastructure politics. Who owns what, and under what terms?

There’s no neutral ground. Every login, wallet, or ID system reflects a model of control. The only question is whether it was built to center the user — or simply onboard them.

We don’t need more platforms. We need foundations.

SourceLess is one of the few trying to build those foundations with users, not providers, in mind.