Part 1 – Introducing the Problem

The Overlooked Promise of Decentralized Digital Identity Systems: A Key to Empowering User Privacy and Control in Web3

A Silent Crisis in Web3: The Identity Layer That Doesn’t Exist

Despite over a decade of development in decentralized technologies, there remains a fundamental absence: a unified, functioning identity layer for Web3. In an ecosystem that evangelizes user sovereignty, the management of one’s digital identity — arguably the most personal layer — is still largely dependent on centralized platforms, fragmented key storage mechanisms, or fragile hardware wallets.

The problem is less about infrastructure and more about coordination. Sign-in with Ethereum, ENS, and wallet-based presence offer partial solutions, but they don’t provide portability, consistency, or privacy by design. Autonomous identity remains an unsolved puzzle. The current state leaves users locked into ecosystems, unable to carry reputational data from one protocol to another. KYC processes are duplicated across DeFi platforms, decentralized social networks, and NFT marketplaces, imposing friction and violating the very ethos of self-custodianship.

Historically, this oversight wasn’t accidental. Bitcoin deliberately sidestepped identity, focusing on pseudonymity. Ethereum introduced smart contract programmability, but identity remained application-specific. Projects like uPort and Sovrin once promised self-sovereign identity, but died slow deaths amid scalability issues, governance disputes, and lack of developer adoption. Meanwhile, rug pulls, Sybil attacks, false DAO votes, and spammy airdrops proliferated — symptoms of an ecosystem operating without trusted identity signals.

The void is further exacerbated by composability’s dark side. DeFi protocols are seamlessly interoperable — but so are bots, multi-wallet abusers, and bad actors gaming yield incentives. Governance is locked in a tension between excluding non-human participants and preserving anonymity. A recent discussion on governance highlights how the lack of verified identity continues to dilute real stakeholder power.

This is not just a UX problem. It's an existential bottleneck. Without aggregated reputation, trusted credentials, and cross-chain identity attestation, Web3 cannot scale beyond niche users. Onboarding remains asymmetric, requiring centralized exchanges for fiat ramps — ironically making Binance a de facto identity provider through verification layers. (If you're onboarding, use this referral for lower fees: https://accounts.binance.com/register?ref=35142532)

Solutions are emerging. Zero-knowledge proofs, verifiable credentials, and decentralized identifiers (DIDs) all hint at a possible shift. But with every protocol implementing its own siloed stack, the ecosystem risks fracturing again. An interoperable identity substrate is needed — one that balances privacy, composability, and user control without reintroducing central trust anchors. The architecture exists. The adoption does not.

Part 2 – Exploring Potential Solutions

Self-Sovereign Identity Solutions in Web3: A Technical Deep Dive into Decentralized Digital Identity Frameworks

At the center of the decentralized identity movement are self-sovereign identity (SSI) protocols, offering users direct agency over their credentials without reliance on centralized authorities. Frameworks like DID (Decentralized Identifiers), VC (Verifiable Credentials), and ZKP (Zero-Knowledge Proofs) form the backbone of these systems, forming a model that attempts to balance composable identity data with strong privacy guarantees.

Protocols such as KILT Protocol and ION (built atop Bitcoin’s Sidetree protocol) aim to anchor identity data on-chain or on layer-2s. Their strength lies in minimizing on-chain storage while maximizing verifiability. However, binding identity to a blockchain introduces issues around mutability, linkability, and long-term data permanence. Once published—even cryptographically hashed—identity metadata becomes susceptible to correlation over time through metadata analysis and address clustering.

Beyond anchoring, privacy-preserving approaches such as anonymous credentials (e.g., Idemix, CL Signatures) and selective disclosure through ZKPs are gaining traction. These allow users to prove claims (e.g., age, citizenship) without revealing the underlying credential. Platforms exploring this include zkSync ID integrations and ongoing efforts around MACI (Minimal Anti-Collusion Infrastructure). The challenge here is user accessibility; ZK systems often introduce UX friction through wallet integration, heavy computation requirements, and key management complexities.

Another emerging solution is identity within the DeFi-layer itself, via reputation systems leveraging on-chain behavior. For example, Soulbound Tokens (SBTs) represent non-transferable credentials linked to addresses. While Vitalik Buterin's vision of SBTs promises decentralized trust without centralized KYC, practical implementations face issues of consent, revocation, and false attribution. A misassigned SBT can permanently stigmatize an address.

There’s also experimentation around decentralized reputation via token curation markets, where communities curate legitimate credentials through stake-weighted voting. This introduces Sybil resistance and collective verification but risks echo chambers, plutocracy, and manipulation if incentive structures aren’t crystalized.

Cross-chain identity standardization remains another unresolved bottleneck. Projects like Lit Protocol and SpruceID are betting on interoperable identity layers that abstract away underlying chains. While promising, they rely heavily on off-chain key infrastructure and still confront centralization risks if resolvers or registries become bottlenecks.

The identity stack is evolving fast, but none of these systems, on their own, fully satisfy the trilemma of decentralization, privacy, and usability. What’s becoming evident is that composability across these layers—ZKPs for disclosure, DIDs for persistence, decentralized storage for portability—might be the only path forward.

The third installment of this series will explore how these theories are being implemented, and where tensions between autonomy and security are leading to hard trade-offs across protocols.

Part 3 – Real-World Implementations

Real-World Implementations: Where Decentralized Identity Meets Practical Friction

Efforts to bring decentralized identity (DID) systems into operational Web3 ecosystems have not been uniform. Several blockchain-native projects—including Polkadot's KILT Protocol, Ethereum’s ENS, and Polygon ID—have ventured into this space, each encountering unique design, adoption, and scalability challenges.

KILT Protocol engineered a robust framework for creating verifiable credentials using self-sovereign identity concepts on a permissionless substrate chain. However, despite its technical elegance, adoption remains niche, largely due to its learning curve for both developers and end-users. Developers must handle off-chain signature logic and manage users' credential revocation states, which complicates integration into consumer-facing dApps.

Ethereum Name Service (ENS), though not a complete identity solution, has achieved more visible traction by linking readable .eth domains with blockchain wallets. However, the architecture's reliance on Ethereum gas fees becomes a bottleneck when attempting to frequently update records or scale across chains. Furthermore, ENS lacks private identity verification capabilities and is fundamentally constrained by public-by-default metadata, making it ill-suited for applications demanding confidentiality.

Meanwhile, Polygon ID has aimed to bridge scalability and privacy by leveraging zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) via the zkProof SDK. While technically promising, the reliance on recursive SNARKs creates UX latency concerns, especially in mobile-first markets. More critically, despite support from Polygon’s ecosystem, use cases remain isolated—often restricted to demo integrations with partner projects that have yet to reach sustainable network effects.

Failures also stem from misaligned incentives. One example is the wave of NFT-based KYC tokens that attempted to tie identity to tradable assets. While innovative in theory, commodifying identity raised questions about transferability, fraud vectors, and black-market use. These issues echo concerns explored in The Overlooked Dynamics of Privacy-Preserving Decentralized Finance, particularly regarding on-chain privacy leakage and state persistence.

Cross-chain compatibility remains an additional constraint. Identity solutions on one chain rarely interoperate cleanly with applications on others. While bridging protocols like IBC or Wormhole suggest some future potential, no decentralized solution today offers seamless cross-chain portability of identity without central relayers or external aggregation logic—undermining the very principles of decentralization.

Some projects have resorted to offloading identity data storage to IPFS or Arweave, but these are stopgaps, not holistic infrastructures. Until DIDs fully integrate with composable smart contract layers and ZK-native architectures, widespread DID adoption in the Web3 stack will continue to face systemic resistance.

Many of these lessons will ripple into the broader conversation about this technology’s long-term trajectory—an exploration that continues in the next section.

Part 4 – Future Evolution & Long-Term Implications

The Future of Decentralized Identity: Scalability, Interoperability, and Privacy Trade-offs

Decentralized digital identity (DID) is poised for a radical evolution—not just through increased adoption, but via core protocol advancements and architectural integration across increasingly modular Web3 ecosystems. One vector of growth is scalability. Currently, on-chain DID registries—especially those built on Layer-1s—struggle with storage bloat and transaction throughput, making universal identities expensive and slow to resolve. Emerging Layer-2 solutions and off-chain resolution mechanisms (e.g., recursive ZK proofs for identity attestations) could drastically minimize this burden, allowing identity proofs to be efficiently stored and verified across chains with minimal on-chain interaction.

Interoperability is another crucial frontier. Most DID solutions today are network-specific: an identity created on Ethereum may not meaningfully translate to use in Cosmos or Solana. Projects are exploring cross-chain credential standards and DID hubs that act as bridges between identity silos. The integration of decentralized identity with cross-chain platforms like BitTorrent Chain (BTTC) hints at a more unified decentralized ecosystem, as discussed in Unlocking Cross-Chain Potential with BitTorrent Chain. However, with composability comes new attack surfaces, especially if identity providers fail to enforce revocation coherency across networks.

Privacy remains a thorny issue. While zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) offer promising privacy-preserving identity verification, their implementation introduces latency, cost, and complexity. Optimistic proof systems offer more performant alternatives, but face verification delays and risks of dishonest reporting windows. Furthermore, there's industry pressure toward gradual on-chain behavioral anchoring—a double-edged development where user activities feed into reputation systems. This raises alarms around emergent de-anonymization, despite the original promise of sovereign identity.

A potential paradigm shift could arise from the convergence of DIDs with decentralized reputation protocols and token curation markets, where identities are not just verified, but continuously scored and ranked. This addresses Sybil resistance in DAOs and DeFi, but blurs the line between decentralized empowerment and surveillance capitalism. Concepts explored in The Overlooked Impacts of Token Curation Markets are becoming relevant to DID systems themselves.

Finally, there’s a governance dependency emerging silently. Many DID standards rely on registry contracts or root authorities that are governed either by centralized entities or semi-decentralized DAOs. As identity systems get embedded into on-chain voting, access control, and financial instruments, control of these registries becomes a key attack vector—raising ethical and technical governance questions that warrant close scrutiny.

This regulatory grey zone, combined with cross-chain and privacy trade-offs, sets the stage for a necessary discussion around control structures, community-led governance models, and decentralization tradeoffs—topics we’ll now explore in-depth.

Part 5 – Governance & Decentralization Challenges

Governance and Decentralization Challenges in Digital Identity: Pitfalls of Managing Power in a Trustless System

Governance models in decentralized identity systems dictate how power is distributed, which in turn influences adoption, resilience, and long-term functionality. While decentralization promises user sovereignty, governance design can undermine that very goal if poorly implemented.

Centralized approaches offer simplicity and agility in decision-making but at the cost of trust. When a handful of entities manage access, disputes, or updates to identity infrastructure, users are simply trusting new gatekeepers. In contrast, decentralized governance via token-weighted voting or DAOs introduces reduced reliance on single actors—but also amplifies hidden risks.

One major concern is governance attacks. In systems where voting power is tied to token holdings, an adversary could accumulate enough tokens to push exploitative proposals. This is not theoretical—similar vulnerabilities have been exploited in DeFi protocols. With identity, the attack surface is larger; malicious control over a decentralized identifier (DID) registry could allow user impersonation, loss of credentials, or forced revocation.

Regulatory capture is another structural threat. Even in decentralized ecosystems, powerful stakeholders—corporate partners, node operators, or high-value investors—can lobby or shape protocol direction. When decentralized identity protocols are designed around anchored trust registries or endorsements, large actors may dominate these layers, introducing KYC requirements or geopolitical biases. This risk scales when interoperability through bridges is needed—a topic we explored relatedly in The Overlooked Role of Cross-Chain Identity Solutions.

Plutocratic control is perhaps the most persistent issue. Token-weighted votes often lead to a system ruled by early capital-rich participants. Even protocols that attempt quadratic voting or delegated models face sybil-vectoring problems and collusion opportunities. Identity's sensitivity amplifies these outcomes; the context is no longer “who approves a DeFi upgrade,” but “who decides valid claims to legal or social identities.”

Forks rarely solve these governance problems either. Splitting a DID network doesn't just divide code—it fractures the consensus on what identities are considered valid. This hardens governance dilemmas rather than resolving them. Projects like Compound and Curve have demonstrated the complexity of reconciling DAO efficiency with decentralization ideals.

For systems at the intersection of identity and self-sovereignty, governance must avoid both central choke points and decentralized incompetence. Striking that balance is currently unsolved.

In Part 6, the focus will shift toward the engineering compromises and scalability bottlenecks that must be overcome to onboard millions without sacrificing the trustless ethos.

Part 6 – Scalability & Engineering Trade-Offs

Scalability vs. Sovereignty: The Engineering Paradox of Decentralized Digital Identity

At the core of decentralized digital identity (DDID) is the tension between security, decentralization, and performance. Most current implementations struggle to achieve all three at once—known in the blockchain world as the scalability trilemma. For DDID systems, this trilemma becomes even harder to solve given their always-on authentication, multi-chain compatibility, and storage requirements for credentials, attestations, and revocation registries.

Layer 1 blockchains like Ethereum face throughput constraints due to gas fees and block size limitations. For identity systems that must continuously process write transactions (e.g., updates to schemas, credential issuance, or DID document changes), congestion quickly becomes a bottleneck. Projects leveraging Ethereum frequently offload most identity operations to Layer 2 rollups or sidechains. However, this introduces fragmentation risks and additional trust assumptions via sequencer centralization or bridge reliance.

Alternate architectures like Solana and Avalanche emphasize throughput and latency, making them appealing for identity verification workflows. Yet, these gains come at the cost of validator decentralization. Solana’s high-performance design demands powerful hardware, centralizing node participation and undermining one of the core principles of user-controlled identity.

Consensus mechanisms also influence engineering choices. Proof-of-Work (PoW) offers censorship resistance but is computationally expensive and overkill for identity systems not involved in financial settlement. Proof-of-Stake (PoS), particularly in chains like Polygon or Near, provides greater efficiency, but validator collusion or long-range attacks could compromise the immutability of identity anchors. Proof-of-History or DAG-based alternatives improve speed but sacrifice determinism or developer adoption—another key consideration for widespread integration of DDID protocols.

To address storage inefficiencies, some implementations anchor only the hash of an identity registry on-chain while storing credential data off-chain (e.g., IPFS or private databases). However, this reduces verifiability unless data availability and audit mechanisms are independently preserved. Zero-knowledge proofs offer a workaround by enabling private credential verification without revealing underlying data. For those interested in how this ties into broader ecosystem patterns, see The Overlooked Dynamics of Privacy-Preserving Decentralized Finance.

Ultimately, no architecture perfectly fits decentralized identity at scale today. Each engineering decision—whether it's optimizing for block finality, state bloat reduction, or cross-chain interoperability—forces trade-offs that shape user sovereignty and system resilience. Some builders have begun leveraging hybrid models, anchoring identities on high-security Layer 1s while handling identity proofs and attestations in faster, purpose-built chains.

These layered approaches are promising, but introduce complexity, composability hurdles, and new attack vectors that will only multiply as adoption grows.

Part 7 will dissect the regulatory and compliance pressures confronting decentralized identity technologies—revealing the legal contradictions and jurisdictional frictions shaping their future.

Part 7 – Regulatory & Compliance Risks

Regulatory and Legal Uncertainty in Decentralized Identity: Web3's Critical Bottleneck

As decentralized digital identity (DID) systems look to redefine user control and privacy frameworks in Web3 environments, the legal and regulatory terrain they must navigate remains murky and fragmented—posing one of the most serious adoption risks in the space.

While DIDs promise user-centric authentication detached from centralized authorities, this very nature conflicts with compliance requirements in several jurisdictions. For example, GDPR in the EU emphasizes data portability and the “right to be forgotten.” Yet, DIDs are inherently anchored in immutable ledgers where data erasure is structurally infeasible without centralized off-chain bells and whistles. While zero-knowledge proofs help reduce on-chain exposure, legal regulators won’t accept “mathematically private” as a definitive compliance mechanism in court—especially where user data may still exist off-chain or be reconstructed through behavioral metadata.

In the United States, there's regulatory incoherence across federal and state levels. California’s CCPA might accept pseudonymity, but the SEC or FinCEN could interpret self-issued credentials on-chain as “tools for managing financial identity” with implications under Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) statutes. This lack of clear definitional consensus blurs the boundaries between identity systems, crypto wallets, and financial instruments—spooking risk-averse institutional players from integrating the tech.

On a global scale, jurisdictions like China and India may ban or firewall DID-related infrastructure entirely, associating it with data sovereignty threats and evasion of state surveillance. These sovereign data regimes don’t play well with portable, user-owned identity layers. Even when DID implementations comply technically, middleware-run nodes and decentralized identifier registries may face takedown if deemed to be “unlicensed data controllers.”

Add to that ongoing cross-border legal tension around decentralized finance, which has already seen interventions in protocols like Tornado Cash and Curve. Governments are clearly willing to view anonymity—even when privacy-preserving technologies are used proportionately—as criminal-adjacent. This concern directly extends to decentralized identity, where privacy-linked attributes can look like cloaks to shield malicious actors.

Even systems like SHA-256-linked hashes of user claims could be interpreted legally as "shared biometric signatures" under certain data laws—a classification that would haul credential issuers and verifiers into highly regulated domains. For a look at how regulatory scrutiny already plays out in privacy-forward DeFi, explore The Overlooked Dynamics of Privacy-Preserving Decentralized Finance.

Yet paradoxically, some regulators hint at future DID mandates—especially in sectors like digital health, education, and travel—which could co-opt the tech in state-led or consortium-led standards. Whether this leads to innovation or co-optation remains to be seen.

Coming up next is an exploration of how these systems—despite or perhaps because of their regulatory challenges—are primed to reshape financial structures, monetization models, and identity economies in Web3.

Part 8 – Economic & Financial Implications

Economic Implications of Decentralized Identity: Disruption, Risk, and Opportunity in Web3 Markets

Decentralized digital identity (DID) frameworks are poised to challenge entrenched models of value exchange, compliance, and monetization of user data. Their emergence introduces a double-edged sword: a path to user empowerment and data sovereignty, but also a potential destabilizer for data-brokerage markets, KYC providers, and centralized exchanges.

First, the economic ramifications on legacy verification markets are immediate. Players centered around traditional identity verification—banks, data aggregators, and compliance firms—risk obsolescence as permissionless DID systems remove the need for third-party validation. The ability for users to curate their own verifiable credentials and selectively disclose them through zero-knowledge proofs disintermediates entire compliance layers. Platforms like Compound or SushiSwap could eventually leverage these identities to create trustless, compliant DeFi gateways without relying on external KYC providers. This parallels the approach explored in The Overlooked Dynamics of Privacy-Preserving Decentralized Finance: How Zero-Knowledge Proofs Could Revolutionize User Privacy and Security in DeFi, highlighting the interplay between anonymity and trust.

On the upside, DID opens a vast arena for innovation. Protocol-native identity primitives allow DeFi developers to build new classes of products—reputation-based lending markets, dynamic identity staking, and reputation-modulated governance systems. These features reduce sybil attack risks while democratizing access to capital based on merit rather than collateral. Smart contract builders and open-source identity issuers stand to capture value by embedding DIDs into core protocol design.

Traders, however, may face liquidity stratification. If user-verified pools limit participation based on collated identity attributes, markets can fragment between anonymous and DID-gated liquidity. Institutional players might flock to the latter, given improved compliance optics. This bifurcation risks steering capital away from open protocols, undermining DeFi’s permissionless ethos.

Investors must also navigate uncertain tokenomics. Projects integrating DIDs into governance or utility layers may affect token valuations unpredictably, hinging not on network usage but on identity participation. An airdrop targeted at verified developers, for instance, can create sharp inequities and speculative swings tied more to credential thresholds than protocol fundamentals.

Additionally, while DID enhances personal control, it doesn’t obviate capture by dominant platforms. Developers of identity wallets may wield disproportionate influence over which credentials are accepted, effectively centralizing a core decentralized feature. This introduces systemic risk to ecosystems relying on narrow identity registries—akin to reliance on a dominant oracle in DeFi.

As decentralized identity architecture reshapes the economic plumbing of Web3, its ripple effects will demand adaptation across sectors. In the coming section, we’ll explore how these structural changes intersect with deeper cultural and philosophical questions shaping crypto’s future.

Part 9 – Social & Philosophical Implications

Decentralized Identity and the Financial Shakeup: Who Gains and Who Loses?

Decentralized digital identity (DID) systems don’t just represent a technological upgrade—they introduce structural economic disruption with implications across crypto markets, investment vehicles, and on-chain ecosystems. As self-sovereign identity layers become integral to dApp authentication, KYC automation, and smart contract execution, the current identity-as-a-service landscape faces a potential obsolescence. Centralized data brokers and credential issuers—like legacy credit agencies and compliance firms—stand to lose significant market power as verification becomes user-controlled and protocol-driven.

For developers, the integration of DID protocols offers a new monetization vector. Instead of building applications that rely on custodial data silos, they can implement interoperable identity primitives built on verifiable credentials. These modules enable novel business models in areas like permissionless lending, gated DAOs, and token-curated registries. We've seen similar transformations in DeFi sectors already, particularly in protocols leveraging governance-aware mechanisms like those dissected in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/unpacking-the-criticisms-of-compounds-comp-token, where identity could reduce governance attacks via token-sybil resistance.

Institutional investors face a dual-edged environment. On the bullish end, decentralized identity introduces new infrastructure opportunities: investing in identity layer protocols, zero-knowledge middleware, and multi-chain credential registries. On the risk side, regulatory ambiguity remains a drag. If DIDs are considered bearer instruments with sensitive information encoded, they may fall under unexpected compliance regimes. Further, the possibility of identity-data tokenization opens the door to secondary markets that may be volatile, illiquid, or regulatory grey zones—inviting the same legal scrutiny once aimed at early token launches.

For traders, DID-based authentication mechanisms could streamline compliance in otherwise permissionless DeFi opportunities—such as whitelisted trading pools or identity-weighted yield farming. But this is also a liability: if identity primitives create whitelists or introduce friction in “anonymous-by-default” systems, liquidity could fragment. That shift could punish high-volume arbitrage strategies and MEV operations that rely on pseudonymity and repeat wallet cycling.

There’s also the possibility of identity-staking—a niche yet potent area where users may stake DID credentials for DAO participation, fee reductions, or trust scoring. Such models mirror token incentives already seen across governance frameworks, but formalizing identity introduces new speculative behaviors—layers of leverage and derivatives tied to credential reputation or activity. The economic calculus here is fundamentally different, and deeply interwoven with the philosophical underpinnings that Part 9 will explore.

Part 10 – Final Conclusions & Future Outlook

The Final Verdict on Decentralized Digital Identity Systems: A Future Redefined or a Lesson Learned?

Decentralized digital identity (DDID) stands on the precipice of being either the foundation of a more sovereign Web3 or yet another noble idea throttled by infrastructure bottlenecks, UX challenges, and misaligned incentives. The previous sections revealed the multifaceted dimensions of DDID—from trustless zero-knowledge-based authentication to off-chain interoperability—but fundamental gaps remain that could derail potential outcomes.

At best, DDID systems could become the standard mechanism for composable, cross-application identity, reducing dependence on centralized providers and eliminating user surveillance in the process. This vision hinges on broad protocol-level adoption, especially across DeFi, gaming, and DAOs, and demands wallet-native support for identity credential management. However, we’re currently facing an implementation bottleneck. Even with layers like verifiable credentials and zk-based privacy stacks in place, projects have yet to integrate DDID as a core architectural pillar. Behavioral inertia from builders and users alike slows the transition.

In the worst-case scenario, DDID becomes a fragmented niche—useful only for regulated DeFi touchpoints or cross-chain experimentation. Without network-specific incentives, these systems risk decaying into compliance tech versus empowering tools. The frictions of token gating, wallet sprawl, and lack of user abstraction are just as relevant here. Frictionless user experience isn't optional; it’s existential.

Still unresolved is the issue of identity recovery without relying on centralized fallback mechanisms. Social recovery options, such as multi-party computation or guardian-based recovery, are promising yet immature, and mass adoption will not occur without trust-minimized solutions for these edge cases.

For developers and founders pushing the edge, DDID isn’t a trend—it’s infrastructure. But for mainstream adoption, change must come from two vectors: usability and composability. Systems like The Overlooked Dynamics of Privacy-Preserving Decentralized Finance show how technological convergence can drive meaningful privacy and control, but only if it's built into protocols—not retrofitted.

So what’s the final status? It’s still being written.

Will decentralized identity redefine the next era of blockchain, anchoring user sovereignty and interoperability? Or will it be another well-documented experiment, remembered only in GitHub repos and VC decks?

The answer will depend not just on how many solutions are deployed, but whether they actually get used.

Ready to build in an identity-first Web3? Start your journey here: Binance Registration.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com