History of KILT

The History of KILT: Development, Milestones, and Challenges

KILT Protocol was developed to address the need for decentralized identity solutions, leveraging blockchain technology for verifiable credentials. The project was initiated by BOTLabs GmbH, a company founded by Ingo Rübe, with a vision to create a system that allows users to maintain control over their digital identity without reliance on centralized authorities.

Early Development and Kusama Parachain Slot

KILT initially launched as a standalone blockchain built using Substrate but later transitioned to the Kusama network—Polkadot’s experimental environment—by securing a parachain slot through a crowdloan. This move allowed KILT to benefit from Kusama's shared security while refining its technology before potential deployment on Polkadot.

The crowdloan model for the parachain auction required users to lock up their KSM tokens in exchange for KILT rewards. While this method successfully secured network participation, it also highlighted liquidity concerns, as participants had to forgo access to their locked tokens for the lease period. Despite these limitations, KILT managed to establish itself within Kusama’s ecosystem.

Transition to Polkadot and Mainnet Launch

Following its successful run on Kusama, KILT secured a Polkadot parachain slot, signaling the project's maturation beyond the experimental phase. The migration to Polkadot enabled increased security and scalability, which were crucial for onboarding enterprise and institutional users. The transition featured a token migration process, requiring users to swap their native Kusama-based KILT tokens to the Polkadot-based version. While technically necessary, this process introduced friction for users unfamiliar with blockchain migrations.

Adoption and Real-World Use Cases

KILT has positioned itself within the decentralized digital identity sector, with integrations aimed at enterprises and organizations requiring verifiable credentials. The protocol facilitates self-sovereign identity (SSI) solutions in industries such as finance, gaming, and Know Your Customer (KYC) compliance. However, the adoption of decentralized identity standards remains a slow-moving process, with regulatory uncertainty and interoperability challenges hindering widespread implementation.

Challenges and Scaling Issues

Despite its technical advancements, KILT faces challenges common to many blockchain-based identity solutions. User adoption relies heavily on partnerships with enterprises and governments, which are traditionally slow to implement decentralized alternatives. Additionally, competition from other decentralized identity protocols has led to a fragmented market, making interoperability a crucial yet unresolved challenge.

While KILT’s progression from Kusama to Polkadot has strengthened its security and network effects, real-world adoption remains an ongoing hurdle. The need for enterprise interest and regulatory clarity continues to shape its trajectory within the evolving decentralized identity landscape.

How KILT Works

How KILT Works: Decentralized Identity & Credentialing on Blockchain

KILT operates as a decentralized identity protocol, leveraging blockchain technology to issue, manage, and verify self-sovereign credentials. It is built on the Polkadot ecosystem as a parachain, utilizing the Substrate framework for modular and scalable development.

Trust Anchors and Verifiable Credentials

At the core of KILT's system are Trust Anchors, entities that issue verifiable credentials (VCs) based on real-world data. Users can claim credentials by proving specific attributes, such as certifications or identity verification, without exposing unnecessary personal details. This selective disclosure is designed to enhance privacy while maintaining trust. The issuer signs the credential, and instead of storing personal data on-chain, only cryptographic proof of validity is recorded.

Blockchain-Based Attestations

KILT utilizes a hash-based mechanism to ensure credential integrity. When a Trust Anchor issues a credential, a hash of it is stored on the KILT blockchain. This proof allows third parties to verify the credential's authenticity without relying on centralized databases. However, revocation mechanisms can be challenging in fully decentralized systems, requiring issuers to flag credentials as invalid without directly controlling them post-issuance.

DID and Web3 Integration

KILT integrates Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs), enabling users and organizations to establish on-chain identities without relying on traditional intermediaries. By linking blockchain-native identities with real-world credentials, KILT aims to facilitate Web3 authentication that reduces dependence on cookies, passwords, and centralized verification services. However, adoption remains a limiting factor, as platforms must support DIDs for them to be effective.

Economics and Staking Model

The KILT token ($KILT) serves various functions, including staking for collators, transaction fees, and governance. The network operates a Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) model, where collators maintain the parachain and validators secure the relay chain. Staking incentivizes participation, but it also introduces centralization risks, as dominant stakers can influence network decision-making.

Limitations and Challenges

While KILT provides a privacy-preserving alternative to traditional credentialing, real-world adoption faces challenges. Enterprises and regulators may be slow to integrate decentralized identity solutions, and interoperability with other DID standards remains an ongoing concern. Additionally, user education and seamless onboarding are critical hurdles that must be addressed for broader adoption.

Use Cases

KILT Use Cases: Digital Identity, Credentials & Beyond

Decentralized Identity and Verifiable Credentials

KILT primarily facilitates decentralized identity (DID) management and verifiable credentials (VCs). By leveraging blockchain for identity verification, KILT allows users to create self-sovereign identities without reliance on centralized authorities. This is critical for use cases like authentication in Web3 applications, where users can present cryptographic proofs of identity while maintaining privacy. However, adoption hurdles remain, as enterprises and regulators may be slow to integrate blockchain-based identity solutions into existing frameworks.

Web3 Login and Authentication

KILT enables login mechanisms that replace traditional username-password systems with blockchain-based authentication. Users control their own credentials, reducing risks of data breaches and identity theft. Several blockchain projects utilize this for frictionless authentication, improving security while eliminating reliance on third-party services like OAuth or centralized identity providers. Even with these advantages, achieving widespread adoption is a challenge, as many Web2 platforms lack compatibility with self-sovereign identity frameworks.

Enterprise and Compliance Use Cases

Regulated industries, including finance and healthcare, require secure identity verification. KILT’s identity framework can streamline know-your-customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) processes by issuing reusable, cryptographically verifiable credentials. This reduces compliance costs, but regulatory uncertainty and varying jurisdictional requirements pose challenges. Enterprises may hesitate to transition from traditional KYC providers to blockchain-based solutions without clear legal frameworks.

Credentialing for DAOs and Web3 Governance

Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) can leverage KILT for credential issuance and verification, ensuring that governance participants meet predefined criteria without exposing personal data. Role-based access control in DAOs, gaming environments, or private blockchain networks benefits from tamper-proof verifications. However, DAOs must balance identity verification with decentralization principles, as credentialing could introduce new centralization risks if not structured correctly.

Reputation and Content Verification

KILT’s identity framework can underpin decentralized reputation systems. Influencers, developers, or content creators can use blockchain-based credentials to prove authenticity, combating deepfakes and misinformation. This is particularly relevant in open-source ecosystems where verifying contributor identities can enhance trust. However, ensuring widespread issuer adoption is key—without significant usage, such credentials may hold little value.

Cross-Chain Credential Portability

With Polkadot’s cross-chain interoperability, KILT credentials are usable across multiple blockchain ecosystems. This supports Web3 applications requiring verifiable credentials on Ethereum, Solana, or Cosmos. However, interoperability challenges remain, particularly with platforms that do not natively support or recognize KILT-issued credentials. Adoption outside the Polkadot ecosystem is still a work in progress.

KILT Tokenomics

KILT Tokenomics: Supply, Distribution, and Utility

Fixed Supply and Inflation Model

KILT operates with a fixed maximum supply, ensuring controlled issuance and predictable token emissions. The token's distribution follows a structured allocation model, with portions earmarked for early backers, ecosystem development, and network incentives. While the total supply is capped, the tokenomics include a managed inflation mechanism, primarily rewarding collators and delegators supporting the network’s security and decentralization.

Staking and Delegation Incentives

A key component of KILT’s tokenomics involves staking and delegation. Collators maintain the blockchain by producing blocks, while delegators provide additional security by backing trusted collators. Token holders who delegate their KILT tokens receive staking rewards, which encourages locking up supply and stabilizes token circulation. However, this mechanism also concentrates rewards among the most active participants, potentially leading to centralization risks if a few collators dominate the staking landscape.

Transaction Fees and On-Chain Economics

KILT tokens serve as the native currency for transaction fees required to execute on-chain operations, such as identity verifications and interactions with decentralized applications. Transaction fees are burned rather than redistributed, creating a dynamic supply reduction effect over time. This model theoretically benefits long-term token holders but could lead to unpredictable transaction costs depending on network congestion and adoption levels.

Governance and Network Control

KILT token holders wield governance rights, allowing them to shape protocol upgrades, funding proposals, and economic parameter adjustments. While decentralized decision-making is a key feature, governance participation rates fluctuate, raising concerns about whether decisions truly reflect the majority of stakeholders. Additionally, large token stakeholders naturally have outsized influence, which can lead to governance capture if not carefully monitored.

Utility for Identity Verification

The primary utility of KILT tokens extends beyond payments, serving a fundamental role in decentralized identity verification. Users staking KILT to generate credentials or attestations enables a self-sovereign identity system. However, the sustainability of this model depends on consistent network adoption, as a lack of demand could limit transaction activity and slow ecosystem growth.

Token Liquidity and Market Behavior

While KILT is actively traded on decentralized and centralized exchanges, its liquidity is influenced by staking lock-ups and governance-driven token sinks. High staking participation can reduce available supply on the open market, impacting trading volumes and potential volatility. Additionally, early token allocations to investors and ecosystem participants introduce vesting considerations that could periodically affect market supply.

KILT Governance

KILT Governance: Decentralized Decision-Making and Key Challenges

KILT operates under a decentralized governance model designed to allow stakeholders to influence network changes, protocol upgrades, and treasury allocations. Governance revolves around KILT token holders, the on-chain council, and the technical committee, each playing distinct roles in shaping the blockchain’s evolution.

KILT Token Holders and On-Chain Voting

KILT token holders participate in governance by voting on proposals related to network upgrades, economic parameters, and protocol improvements. The system uses a weighted voting mechanism, where the amount of KILT staked and the duration of commitment affect voting power. While this can align incentives between long-term holders and protocol sustainability, it also raises concerns about governance centralization—major token holders can exert significant influence, potentially sidelining smaller stakeholders.

The Role of the On-Chain Council

The council, elected by token holders, plays a crucial intermediary role in governance. It can propose referenda, veto harmful proposals, and manage treasury funds. However, a limited number of council members introduces potential centralization risks, especially if voter apathy leads to low participation in elections. Additionally, the ability of the council to fast-track certain proposals could lead to governance dynamics where power is concentrated among a few active participants rather than being truly decentralized.

Technical Committee Oversight

A separate technical committee, typically composed of developers and core contributors, helps ensure that governance proposals are technically feasible. While necessary for maintaining security and protocol integrity, this group holds significant veto power over network decisions. The involvement of a select group of developers raises concerns over whether technical governance becomes a bottleneck for community-driven decision-making.

Governance Challenges and Potential Risks

One of the primary issues in KILT’s governance model is participation. Many blockchain projects struggle with low voter turnout, and KILT is no exception. When governance is dominated by a small subset of active participants, protocol direction may not reflect the broader stakeholder base. Additionally, KILT’s reliance on stake-weighted voting can lead to governance capture, where large token holders dictate decisions that may not align with the network’s long-term decentralization goals.

Another key challenge is balancing technical expertise with democratic decision-making. While the technical committee ensures proposals are viable, it also centralizes a degree of control, which can lead to friction with community-led initiatives. Governance centralization risks remain an area of concern, particularly as KILT continues to evolve within the Polkadot ecosystem.

Technical future of KILT

KILT Protocol: Current and Future Technical Developments

Decentralized Identifier (DID) Enhancements and Interoperability

KILT Protocol continues to refine its decentralized identifier (DID) framework, emphasizing interoperability across Web3 and traditional identity systems. The protocol is improving compatibility with the W3C DID standard, ensuring seamless integration with other identity management solutions. However, maintaining interoperability while preserving KILT’s on-chain identity verification security remains a technical challenge. Cross-chain functionality with Ethereum and other major networks is under development, albeit with complexities around gas fees and identity attestation persistence.

Migration to Full Parachain Autonomy

While KILT operates as a Polkadot parachain, a major technical focus is reducing reliance on shared relay chain functionalities. The roadmap includes optimizing staking and governance mechanisms to enhance decentralization. However, this transition faces potential bottlenecks, particularly in ensuring validator incentives remain aligned without compromising network security.

Smart Contract Implementation for Identity Credentials

The introduction of smart contract capabilities for identity credentials is a key development. By enabling credential issuance and verification through smart contracts, KILT aims to enhance automation and reduce reliance on centralized validation points. This approach, however, introduces potential vulnerabilities, especially if contract logic does not fully account for evolving identity standards. Ensuring smart contract upgradability without creating attack vectors remains a focal concern.

Enhancing Identity Storage with Off-Chain Solutions

KILT's approach to identity data storage prioritizes off-chain solutions like DID-linked verifiable credentials to minimize on-chain bloat and enhance privacy. Future updates target improved storage architectures that balance efficiency with immutability. However, securely linking off-chain credentials with on-chain proofs without sacrificing decentralization or creating data consistency issues continues to be an area requiring robust cryptographic solutions.

Expansion of Collator and Governance Mechanisms

Efforts to decentralize KILT’s governance and validator structure through increased collator participation are ongoing. The network is experimenting with mechanisms to distribute validation more broadly beyond the current collator set. However, achieving optimal decentralization without increasing network latency or reducing transaction throughput presents a technical trade-off that requires further refinement.

zk-SNARK and Privacy Enhancements

KILT is exploring zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) implementations, specifically zk-SNARKs, to provide selective privacy capabilities for identity attestations. The challenge remains in balancing privacy with auditability, ensuring that credentials can be verified without leaking sensitive data. Computational overhead and integration complexity pose additional hurdles to large-scale adoption.

Comparing KILT to it’s rivals

KILT vs. DOT: A Comparison of Identity and Infrastructure Focus

When comparing KILT to DOT (Polkadot), the most immediate difference lies in their core objectives. While KILT is primarily focused on decentralized identity and verifiable credentials, DOT serves as the foundational layer for an entire ecosystem of parachains, providing scalability, interoperability, and governance infrastructure for Web3 projects.

Technical Architecture and Use Case Scope

KILT operates as a parachain within the Polkadot ecosystem, but its scope is more narrowly defined. It is designed specifically for identity-related use cases, such as decentralized identifiers (DIDs), verifiable credentials, and reputation mechanisms. On the other hand, Polkadot functions as a Layer 0 solution, creating an environment where multiple specialized blockchains (parachains) can interoperate with shared security.

This specialization means that KILT does not directly compete with DOT as a base-layer infrastructure, but rather as a service provider that benefits from Polkadot’s relay chain. However, the drawback here is that KILT’s reliance on Polkadot governance mechanisms and staking models can introduce challenges. Any changes to Polkadot’s core policies, such as staking requirements or fee structures, can have cascading effects on all parachains, including KILT.

Decentralization Trade-offs and Governance Models

Polkadot’s governance is structured around on-chain referenda and token-weighted voting, meaning that proposals require DOT holders' approval to be implemented. KILT, by running as a parachain, aligns with this system but has its own governance mechanisms layered on top to define protocol-specific decisions. While this allows for some flexibility, it also means KILT is ultimately subject to broader Polkadot governance decisions, particularly regarding parachain slot renewals, relay chain upgrades, and staking policy shifts.

For users and developers concerned with self-sovereign governance, this may present challenges. Unlike a standalone blockchain, KILT does not control its own consensus security model, relying instead on Polkadot’s shared validator set.

Economic and Tokenomic Considerations

DOT’s primary role as the backbone of Polkadot’s security, staking, and governance system gives it significant liquidity and adoption. KILT, in contrast, has a more niche utility in decentralized identity, meaning that its demand is tied to adoption within specific identity-driven applications rather than broad ecosystem participation.

While DOT benefits from continuous staking incentives and parachain auctions, KILT’s model requires projects to actively onboard users who need identity verification. This difference can impact long-term adoption if enterprises or developers do not integrate identity-based solutions at scale.

KILT vs. POLYX: Decentralized Identity vs. Regulated Compliance

KILT and POLYX serve distinct purposes within the blockchain space, yet they share similarities in their focus on trust, compliance, and verifiable credentials. KILT operates as a decentralized identity protocol, while POLYX powers the Polymesh blockchain, which specializes in regulatory-compliant security token infrastructure.

Trust Mechanics: Self-Sovereignty vs. Regulatory Controls

KILT’s architecture is designed around self-sovereign identity (SSI), where users have complete control over their digital credentials without reliance on centralized intermediaries. In contrast, POLYX enforces a regulated trust model, ensuring that participants are verified under compliance frameworks such as KYC and AML before engaging in asset transfers.

This difference results in trade-offs. KILT prioritizes privacy and decentralization, enabling pseudonymous identities secured by cryptographic attestation. Meanwhile, POLYX mandates identity verification at the network level, making it unsuitable for purely decentralized use cases but optimal for legally compliant financial transactions.

Governance and Permissioning Differences

KILT operates as a parachain on Polkadot, benefiting from shared security and interoperability without requiring strict permissioned controls over its network participants. POLYX, however, runs on Polymesh, a permissioned blockchain where validators and participants must meet specific regulatory criteria before interacting with the network.

This structural distinction has practical implications. KILT allows a wider range of decentralized applications to integrate identity solutions without pre-approval, whereas POLYX enforces compliance constraints that may limit openness but enhance institutional adoption.

Use Case Suitability and Adoption Barriers

KILT’s identity model is adaptable across multiple industries, including gaming, Web3 logins, and credential verification—sectors with rapidly evolving decentralization demands. POLYX, by contrast, is tightly linked to capital markets and regulatory frameworks, making it well-suited for compliant security token issuance but less flexible beyond financial use cases.

Adoption barriers also differ greatly. KILT faces challenges in persuading enterprises and developers to adopt decentralized identity solutions, particularly in environments still reliant on traditional identity verification models. POLYX, while regulatory-friendly, restricts participation to verified entities, reducing accessibility for fully decentralized applications.

Smart Contract and Transaction Dynamics

KILT leverages Substrate-based smart contracts, enabling modular identity management solutions while remaining interoperable with other Polkadot-based chains. POLYX, however, does not support general-purpose smart contracts, as the Polymesh blockchain is designed for specific regulatory-compliant asset issuance rather than broad programmability.

This limitation means that while POLYX excels in legally compliant asset transactions, it does not offer the same developer flexibility as KILT, which can integrate identity verification across a more diverse range of decentralized applications.

KILT vs. ONDO: A Comparative Analysis

Differing Approaches to Tokenization and Identity

KILT and ONDO take fundamentally different approaches to blockchain utility. KILT focuses on decentralized identity and verifiable credentials, empowering users to control their online identities while enabling trustless authentication. ONDO, on the other hand, operates in the tokenized real-world asset (RWA) space, specializing in bridging traditional finance and blockchain through structured token offerings. This difference in core focus means their use cases rarely overlap, but it also highlights the divergence in technical architecture and adoption challenges.

Native Blockchain Integration and Technical Infrastructure

KILT operates within the Polkadot ecosystem, leveraging Substrate for customizability and scalability. Its focus on identity solutions places an emphasis on interoperability and compliance-oriented features. In contrast, ONDO builds on Ethereum, utilizing ERC-20 and related token standards to ensure compatibility with decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms. The reliance on Ethereum provides ONDO with deep liquidity access but also exposes it to Ethereum's scalability limitations and high gas fees. This divide in architectural foundations impacts how each project approaches regulatory constraints and decentralization.

Regulatory Complexity and Compliance Considerations

Both projects position themselves within heavily regulated sectors, but their compliance approaches differ. KILT emphasizes self-sovereign identity and privacy-preserving credentials, aligning with GDPR and selective disclosure mandates. ONDO, by contrast, operates in the tightly regulated securities and asset management space, requiring adherence to traditional financial oversight mechanisms such as KYC/AML procedures. This puts ONDO in a challenging spot, navigating compliance in a manner that may limit its decentralization. For users prioritizing privacy over financial instruments, KILT presents a completely different regulatory trade-off than ONDO.

Adoption Challenges and Institutional Interest

Institutional adoption plays a key role in both ecosystems, but the targets differ. KILT's primary adoption comes from enterprises seeking on-chain identity verification, government initiatives, and Web3 applications requiring verifiable credentials. ONDO, however, finds traction among institutional investors looking for blockchain-based exposure to real-world assets. The reliance on financial instruments means ONDO is deeply tied to the performance of traditional markets, while KILT remains more independent from external economic conditions. These adoption paths highlight the contrasting growth dynamics between identity issuance and tokenized assets.

Smart Contract Dependence vs. Modular Framework

ONDO's reliance on Ethereum smart contracts imposes systemic risk related to contract security vulnerabilities, MEV concerns, and network congestion. KILT, due to its Substrate-based architecture, operates in a more modular fashion, reducing dependency on Ethereum's constraints. However, this also means KILT must establish its own adoption pipelines rather than relying on Ethereum’s extensive DeFi integrations. This difference in smart contract reliance impacts security models, with KILT benefiting from greater modular adaptability while ONDO inherits Ethereum's security assumptions.

Primary criticisms of KILT

Primary Criticism of KILT Protocol

Centralization Concerns in Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS)

KILT operates on a Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) consensus mechanism, which raises concerns regarding validator centralization. While the system allows for greater efficiency compared to traditional Proof-of-Work, it also concentrates power among a small number of validators. This creates potential centralization risks, as these validators have significant influence over block production and network governance. A small group of well-funded entities or colluding parties could theoretically manipulate the network, undermining its decentralized ethos.

Governance Control and Council Oversight

KILT employs an on-chain governance system that includes a council with elevated decision-making power. Critics argue that this governance model can lead to imbalances where early stakeholders and the council effectively dominate decision-making. While token-based voting introduces an element of decentralization, governance decisions may still be swayed by large token holders rather than being truly community-driven. This structure can make the protocol susceptible to governance capture, where decision-making benefits insiders rather than the broader ecosystem.

Enterprise Adoption vs. Permissionless Innovation

KILT is positioned primarily as an identity and credentialing solution for enterprises, which brings scrutiny regarding its openness to permissionless innovation. Some argue that a focus on institutional adoption may lead to compromises on decentralization, as certain enterprise use cases might require regulatory accommodations or centralized control mechanisms. The close alignment with businesses and government-like identity frameworks has led to concerns that KILT could prioritize compliance over the core principles of blockchain neutrality and censorship resistance.

Demand for KILT Tokens and Utility Limitations

Critics highlight potential concerns surrounding the actual demand for the KILT token beyond staking and governance. While KILT tokens are required for transaction fees and credential issuance, the extent of real-world demand remains a topic of debate. If enterprise adoption does not translate into consistent token use at scale, it risks creating a system where token value is speculative rather than utility-driven. Furthermore, questions persist about whether the economic incentives are robust enough to sustain broad network activity without external dependencies.

Interoperability Challenges with Broader Web3 Ecosystem

KILT operates within the Polkadot ecosystem, benefiting from shared security and cross-chain compatibility. However, its specific focus on digital identity infrastructure means that integration with non-Polkadot chains may present technical and adoption hurdles. The reliance on Polkadot’s parachain model also ties its scalability and security guarantees to the broader health of the Polkadot network, making KILT susceptible to external risks beyond its own protocol development.

Founders

KILT Founding Team: Origins, Vision, and Challenges

The KILT Protocol was created by BOTLabs GmbH, a company co-founded by Ingo Rübe, a former CTO at Hubert Burda Media and a prominent figure in decentralized identity solutions. Rübe has a background in open-source projects, notably having played a major role in the Apache Software Foundation before founding BOTLabs. His prior focus on publishing tech and content management systems gradually transitioned into blockchain, leading to the development of KILT as a decentralized identity protocol.

The KILT team has primarily operated out of Berlin, Germany, positioning itself within Europe's regulatory environment. While this strategic location aligns with the increasing focus on blockchain compliance and self-sovereign identity solutions, it also presents challenges. Regulatory scrutiny in the European market has intensified, raising ongoing questions about compliance obligations, especially for blockchain projects dealing with identity verification.

A key factor shaping KILT's early trajectory was BOTLabs’ grant funding and its association with the Polkadot ecosystem. The team chose to build KILT as a parachain within the Polkadot network, aligning with its interoperability vision. However, this decision has not been without debate. Some critics argue that reliance on Polkadot's infrastructure ties KILT's success to the broader adoption of the Polkadot network, which has faced challenges in ecosystem growth and developer adoption.

Another notable aspect of KILT’s development has been its engagement with enterprise adoption. The founding team has actively pursued partnerships, notably collaborating with regulatory bodies and enterprises looking to integrate blockchain-based identity verification. However, enterprise adoption of decentralized identity solutions remains slow, and it's unclear whether KILT's model will be widely adopted in the near future.

The KILT founding team has also faced scrutiny over token distribution and governance. While the initial vision aimed for decentralization, early control remained heavily concentrated within BOTLabs and affiliated entities. Some community members have raised concerns over KILT’s governance structure, questioning whether true decentralization has been achieved or if decision-making is still largely dictated by the founding team.

Despite these challenges, KILT remains one of the more recognized Polkadot-based projects focused on decentralized credentials. However, its success will likely depend on how effectively the founding team navigates regulatory hurdles, enterprise adoption, and governance concerns in the evolving Web3 landscape.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

• https://www.kilt.io/
• https://docs.kilt.io/
• https://github.com/KILTprotocol
• https://github.com/KILTprotocol/kilt-specs
• https://github.com/KILTprotocol/mashnet-node
• https://medium.com/KILT-protocol
• https://polkadot.js.org/apps/?rpc=wss%3A%2F%2Frpc.kilt.io#/explorer
• https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/kilt-protocol/
• https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/kilt-protocol
• https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-parachains#kilt
• https://kusama.network/parachains/kilt
• https://yellowpaper.kilt.io/
• https://whitepaper.kilt.io/
• https://twitter.com/KiltProtocol
• https://discord.gg/kilt
• https://t.me/KILTProtocolChat
• https://substrate.io/ecosystem/projects/kilt
• https://x.com/KiltProtocol
• https://parachains.info/details/kilt
• https://subscan.io/extrinsics?module=kilt