Vitalik Buterin’s critique of the World project is principled, pragmatic, and timely. I agree with his reservations and would argue that the stakes are even higher than he outlines.

Essay: Vitalik Buterin's Critique of Sam Altman's "World" Project – A Call for Pluralism Over Centralization

by ChatGPT-4o

Sam Altman’s World project—formerly known as Worldcoin—proposes a radical new system for verifying digital identity: scanning individuals' irises to create a unique, blockchain-based "proof of personhood." Framed as a way to distinguish real humans from AI agents in an increasingly automated digital landscape, the idea is rooted in optimism about cryptographic solutions to complex societal challenges. Yet Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has issued a well-founded warning against the centralizing risks and privacy tradeoffs embedded in the project. His critique is not only technically astute but ethically necessary, especially at a time when digital identity systems are rapidly becoming tools of surveillance and control.

Buterin’s Criticism: Valid and Urgent

Buterin acknowledges the promise of zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs)—a cryptographic technique that allows information to be verified without revealing the underlying data. In theory, using ZKPs to confirm someone is a unique human (without disclosing their real identity) sounds privacy-respecting. But in practice, Buterin argues, such systems often collapse into de facto centralized surveillance. A “one-per-person” ID system, even if cryptographically masked, tends to enforce a single public identity across all online and offline activities. This is particularly dangerous in politically volatile contexts or authoritarian regimes.

He illustrates this risk with a real-world example: the U.S. government requiring international students to set their social media accounts to public for visa screening. Even if identity systems don’t formally link all online behaviors, they create the potential for coercion—governments or corporations can demand access to “secret” identifiers, thus exposing an individual’s full digital history. This vulnerability undermines the theoretical anonymity of ZKPs.

I strongly agree with Buterin’s warning. A biometric-based ID system backed by a tech giant like Altman’s Tools for Humanity—and connected to a global blockchain ledger—is structurally ripe for abuse. While presented as a neutral technological fix, it risks normalizing state or corporate overreach by cloaking surveillance in the language of “safety” and “anti-bot verification.”

Pluralistic Identity vs Monolithic Proof-of-Personhood

Buterin's alternative vision is a "pluralistic identity" system: rather than relying on one central authority (like the World project's iris scans), identity should emerge from a web of overlapping social attestations. These could be explicit (peer endorsements from already verified users) or implicit (cross-verification from multiple platforms). Such a decentralized approach mirrors the resilience of ecosystems—it avoids single points of failure and resists monopolization.

This pluralism doesn’t just benefit privacy; it aligns with democratic values. It allows for multiple forms of legitimacy and identity—something crucial in a diverse, globalized society. And it creates friction against the rise of authoritarian techno-governance models, where a centralized ID can be weaponized against dissent, protest, or even alternative thought.

Additional Concerns: Ownership, Consent, and Power

Beyond Buterin’s points, several other concerns about the World project deserve mention:

1. Biometric Lock-In: Iris data is immutable. If compromised, it cannot be changed like a password. Even if encrypted, storing such data creates unprecedented risks—ranging from theft to long-term profiling.

2. Informed Consent: Many people who signed up for Worldcoin in the early days reportedly didn’t fully understand what they were opting into. This undermines the legitimacy of the system’s user base and raises questions about exploitation—especially in low-income regions where early onboarding efforts were concentrated.

3. Corporate Power Consolidation: Altman is already at the center of several global-scale technology initiatives (OpenAI, Helion, World). A world in which he also controls the most widely adopted proof-of-humanity system would dangerously concentrate soft power. It mirrors the concerns raised about Elon Musk controlling both Starlink and X.

4. Civic Fragility: A single ID to access voting systems, social media, healthcare, or financial services might sound convenient. But it turns society’s digital backbone into a brittle infrastructure. If it fails—or is revoked—it can instantly disenfranchise someone entirely.

5. False Binary of AI vs Human: The framing of the World project assumes that AI-generated content is inherently problematic and must be filtered via "human verification." This risks entrenching a dichotomy that ignores nuance—like humans who rely on AI for communication or the existence of mixed human-AI creative processes.

The Geopolitical Angle

With rising authoritarianism in various parts of the world—and the increasing militarization of identity systems (e.g., China’s social credit scoring or India’s Aadhaar-linked surveillance)—the deployment of a globally unified digital ID must be treated as a geopolitical issue, not just a technical or philanthropic project. If such a system falls into the wrong hands, it could become a tool for oppression, data colonization, or even mass behavioral manipulation.

Moreover, projects like World often bypass democratic accountability by operating under the banner of innovation. The absence of regulatory oversight for transnational identity systems is a glaring blind spot in current global governance, and Worldcoin may accelerate this trend.

Conclusion: A World We Should Decline

Vitalik Buterin’s critique of the World project is principled, pragmatic, and timely. I agree with his reservations and would argue that the stakes are even higher than he outlines. Worldcoin is not just a flawed idea—it is a structural invitation to surveillance capitalism cloaked in cryptographic idealism.

The future of digital identity should be pluralistic, user-controlled, and resistant to capture by states or corporations. A single, biometric, blockchain-based identity system—regardless of how privacy-friendly it claims to be—is incompatible with these values.

Rather than asking how to build the best one-per-person ID, we should ask: who gets to define personhood, and for what ends? Until we have robust democratic oversight over that question, projects like World should not just be critiqued. They should be resisted.