Part 1 – Introducing the Problem

The Untapped Role of Blockchain in Digital Identity Verification: Reshaping Trust in Online Transactions

Despite the explosion of blockchain applications across sectors, one particularly vital use case remains puzzlingly underdeveloped: digital identity verification. Most blockchain-based platforms still rely on centralized Web2 authentication methods—email-password combinations, custodial KYC providers, and static metadata—fundamentally undermining the decentralization ethos. This creates a blind spot not only for user sovereignty but also for protocol-level automation, compliance, and governance.

Current identity frameworks are fragmented, fragile, and friction-heavy. DID (decentralized identity) protocols exist, but their on-chain implementations are often isolated, lack interoperability, and function more like informational oracles than verified credentials. Worse yet, real-world adoption remains tepid, in part due to an institutional reliance on legacy systems and user fatigue from ever-expanding verification rituals. In short, identity on-chain today is still fundamentally off-chain.

Historically, the "identity problem" has been perceived as a philosophical or UX challenge rather than an infrastructure one. But that framing fails to grasp the systemic implications. Without verifiable, composable, and privacy-preserving identity frameworks, many of the promised efficiencies of smart contracts—like sybil resistance in DAOs, compliance in DeFi, or age verification in GameFi—cannot be realized. As decentralized applications grow more complex, the lack of a standardized trust primitive becomes a structural bottleneck.

Notably, even platforms pioneering enterprise-grade blockchain architecture—such as Symbol by NEM—have had limited traction in integrating robust digital identity layers. As explored in Unlocking the Potential of XYM in Blockchain, Symbol's hybrid-chain capabilities offer a logical foundation for identity modularity, yet practical DID implementations are still scarce. The disconnect between architectural readiness and application-layer adoption reveals the root issue: no one has solved the user identity trilemma—privacy, composability, and verifiability—at scale.

Additionally, current incentive structures discourage experimentation. Most DeFi protocols optimize for TVL, speed, and liquidity mining, not user provenance. Identity solutions often require long-term network effects and nuanced cryptographic integration (e.g., zk-proofs, social recovery), which don’t fit neatly into speculative KPIs. This leaves a vacuum—one increasingly filled by Web2 social logins and opaque verification vendors, ultimately re-centralizing the ecosystem.

What’s needed isn’t another identity whitepaper, but practical coordination between chain design, cryptographic primitives, and community-driven incentives. The challenge is assembling a decentralized trust layer that doesn’t compromise adoption. This series now shifts to examining experimental architectures attempting to solve this hidden design failure—including protocol-native attestations, wallet-bound verifiability, and privacy-preserving identity oracles. For newcomers to the tech stack, platforms like Binance offer a practical entry point into identity-linked crypto onboarding via referral.

Part 2 – Exploring Potential Solutions

Layered Approaches to Blockchain-Based Digital Identity: Beyond the Hype

Emerging strategies for decentralized identity (DID) are maturing rapidly, yet no single framework has definitively solved the inherent tension between usability, privacy, and compliance. This section explores key technological strands—self-sovereign identity (SSI), zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs), and verifiable credentials—in their intersection with blockchain, dissecting each in turn.

Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI): Empowering or Overburdening?

SSIs offer a radical reconfiguration: users manage and store identifiers on their device, issuing proofs to verifiers without central repositories. Projects like Sovrin and uPort pioneered this, and the concept aligns closely with permissioned chains and compliance-heavy use cases. But the reliance on device-side security makes the model less resilient in adversarial situations—validator key theft could mean catastrophic identity compromise.

There’s also the UX problem. Requiring users to understand cryptographic key management and revocation procedures limits mass adoption. Symbol Blockchain’s lean toward enterprise-facing reliability—covered in Understanding Symbol The Future of Blockchain Technology—offers an example of a more integrated, trust-layered approach that bridges the UX-protocol divide SSI systems often suffer from.

ZKPs in Identity Claims: Elegant Asymmetry, Burdensome Computation

Zero-knowledge protocols allow a user to prove possession of a credential or compliance with a rule without revealing underlying data. Projects utilizing ZK-SNARKs or STARKs are building privacy-preserving ID solutions applicable to age verification, KYC-lite exchanges, and DAO governance.

However, current zero-knowledge systems face scalability challenges—proving identity across blockchains or in real-time, multi-actor systems still incurs cost and latency. While pairings-based protocols may offer efficiency, auditors are raising concerns about long-term breakability under post-quantum conditions.

Verifiable Credentials + DID: The Composability Dilemma

Verifiable Credentials (VCs) issued off-chain with on-chain proofs provide a middle ground, offering auditability without centralization. Yet the fragmentation of standards (W3C spec vs. OpenID vs. bespoke solutions) creates silos. Interoperability efforts like Trust Over IP aim to fix this but are far from universally adopted.

Smart contract integration also remains limited. Many platforms lack native VC verification libraries, forcing dApp developers to implement custom logic—undermining composability.

While these technologies introduce promising primitives, their integration into a coherent identity layer for Web3 remains deeply fragmented. Part 3 of this series will take the theoretical into the practical by exploring real-world implementations and what lessons they offer.

Part 3 – Real-World Implementations

Real-World Use Cases: Pushing Blockchain Identity Verification into Production

Several projects have ventured into the decentralized identity (DID) arena attempting to operationalize blockchain’s trustless architecture for real-world identity verification. A few have achieved limited penetration, but most initiatives are still wrestling with interoperability, UX friction, and regulatory gray areas.

One of the more technically mature projects is the Sovrin Network, which built its DID framework on Hyperledger Indy. While it claims full GDPR compliance and decentralized verifiability, adoption has been bottlenecked by its dependency on a permissioned validator set and lack of incentives for node operators. Unlike open networks, Sovrin’s economic model is opaque and sustainability depends heavily on third-party funding rather than protocol-level incentives.

In contrast, the Symbol blockchain—an enterprise-focused chain operating on a modified PoS+ consensus—has seen growing interest for decentralized notary and credential verification services. Symbol's native asset, XYM, is being explored for timestamped on-chain attestations and zero-knowledge proof integrations to validate information without revealing user data. Although Symbol offers strong modularization, adoption has lagged due to insufficient SDK support and limited wallet diversity. A more detailed breakdown of Symbol’s architecture and utility can be found here.

Meanwhile, startups like KILT Protocol and SelfKey built identity stacks on Polkadot and Ethereum respectively. KILT emphasizes credential revocation and claims traceability but faces high friction during onboarding due to domain-specific vocabularies and a lack of widespread verifier adoption. SelfKey, while earlier to market, suffers from low token utility and integration issues with governmental KYC/AML APIs. Neither has resolved the discrepancy between Web2 identity standards and on-chain identifiers.

On the wallet side, Frequentis and Verida are experimenting with self-sovereign identity (SSI) by integrating encrypted, user-controlled data vaults tied to wallet public keys. Though these push toward user-centric models, they expose a challenge: UX complexity. Unlike MetaMask-style flows, users must manage encryption keys and schema registration—far beyond casual users’ appetite.

Also of note is Covalent, which, although not building identity tools per se, has provided on-chain analytics infrastructure that some DID projects utilize for credential activity audits. This meta-layer is helping bridge data validation without requiring traditional oracles. Those interested in Covalent’s data architecture should review this detailed analysis.

Despite these efforts, none have achieved mass-market penetration. The tension between decentralization, privacy-preserving checks, regulatory compliance, and UX continues to stall real-world adoption. Token incentives alone haven’t jumpstarted verifier networks or solved trust delegation. These frictions will become more relevant in the next section, which explores how digital identity on blockchain might mature and adapt over time.

Part 4 – Future Evolution & Long-Term Implications

Anticipating the Next Phase of Blockchain Identity Verification: Breakthroughs, Limitations, and Integration Horizons

The evolution of blockchain-based identity verification hinges on solving three intertwined challenges: scalability, composability, and synchronization with emerging blockchain architectures. Research in verifiable credentials (VCs) and decentralized identifiers (DIDs) is maturing, but the operational bottleneck lies in how identity assertions are validated—particularly when zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) are involved.

The implementation of ZKPs could drastically shift the privacy-performance equation. The rise of zk-rollups and zk-SNARKs is offering scalable paths forward, reducing the computational overhead on Layer-1 chains without compromising privacy. However, seamless interoperability across blockchains remains a major barrier. Identity credentials generated on one chain are not inherently trusted on another—a limitation the ecosystem must address before digital ID becomes truly portable across networks.

Cross-chain identity frameworks will likely lean on Layer-0 protocols or interoperability hubs like Cosmos SDK and Polkadot parachains. This could enable composable identity layers where credentials are both chain-agnostic and access-controlled, without bloating transaction loads. Projects focusing on modular blockchains (such as Symbol’s layered design) might accelerate this shift. In fact, readers who are exploring enterprise-grade features that support native metadata and plug-and-play integrations may want to explore Understanding Symbol The Future of Blockchain Technology, which untangles Symbol’s relevance in identity-based workflows.

Another area gaining traction is secure enclave hardware integrated with blockchain. This real-world bridge could facilitate peer-to-peer biometric authentication with cryptographic attestation—sidestepping the need for centralized identity providers or even self-hosted private keys. But with it comes increased surface area for attack vectors. The crypto-native community must interrogate how hardware-level trust can be validated in open consensus environments, not just by subverting traditional trust anchors with new ones.

As identity verification expands into more granular, behavior-based models—such as social proof systems, wallet reputation, and DAO membership as identity proxies—the ecosystem will face the question of standardization versus modular freedom. Projects integrating social graphs into decentralized identity (e.g., Gitcoin Passport, Proof of Humanity) push the envelope, but creep closer to surveillance logic if ungoverned.

Overall, identity will be less about creation and more about continuous signal validation across verifiable domains. Expect convergence between identity, DAO governance rights, and asset control—all tied to a single reputation layer. How this layer is governed, who sets the schema, and how disputes are resolved will define the legitimacy of blockchain-based identity verification systems in the long-term.

Part 5 – Governance & Decentralization Challenges

Governance Models in Blockchain-Based Identity: Navigating Decentralization Risks and Failures

Identity verification via blockchain ideally promises user control, data immutability, and censorship resistance. But these guarantees hinge on governance structures that are far from standardized—balancing the ideological purity of decentralization with the operational efficiencies of centralized oversight.

Centralized systems—whether operated by consortiums or private entities—offer faster decision-making, clearer accountability, and easier compliance with national ID systems. But they also recreate the same gatekeeping dynamics many in Web3 aim to eliminate. These models are more susceptible to regulatory capture, especially under increasing pressure from global KYC/AML policies. A government’s ability to mandate technical backdoors or blacklist addresses risks turning these once-neutral platforms into extensions of state surveillance.

Decentralized governance promises more community participation. However, implementers must constantly resolve two tensions: reflective representation vs. plutocratic distortion, and immutability vs. adaptability. In token-governed DAOs, wealthy actors can dominate voting through token accumulation, often auto-delegated by apathetic retail holders. When identity systems are governed by such plutocratic structures, critical design and consensus-layer decisions shift towards a narrow elite. This undermines the very principle of identity sovereignty.

Governance attacks pose another underexplored threat. Protocols focused on identity become high-value targets for adversarial takeovers—not necessarily for financial gain, but for control. A coordinated attack could modify credential schema, veto compliance features, or even push through proposals that make the system incompatible with third-party verifiers. For systems aiming to bridge DeFi with legal identities, this fragility becomes existential.

Symbol (XYM), for instance, has explored alternative governance structures to mitigate these kinds of risks. Its hybrid approach enables both enterprise-grade stability and decentralized community input. By separating network consensus from on-chain decision-making, Symbol avoids performance bottlenecks while maintaining openness to stakeholders. Democratizing Decisions: Governance in Symbol (XYM) offers insights into how such layered governance can reduce capture risks and improve response time to emerging coordination failures.

Progressive decentralization in digital ID systems may seem like a compromise, but in practice, staged governance rollouts allow for operational viability while retaining the long-term vision. Still, the lingering tension between DAO-based ideals and the cold reality of incentives persists.

These governance complexities feed directly into broader architectural decisions. Part 6 will explore where engineering ambitions collide with scaling limits—unpacking why blockchains struggle to support identity at a global scale without compromising decentralization, latency, or consistency.

Part 6 – Scalability & Engineering Trade-Offs

Blockchain Identity Verification at Scale: Navigating the Trade-Offs Between Security, Speed, and Decentralization

Implementing decentralized digital identity systems on blockchain infrastructure presents a thorny triad: balancing decentralization, security, and scalability. These dimensions are fundamentally at odds. Maximizing two often comes at the expense of the third.

Public Layer-1 chains like Ethereum prioritize decentralization and security. However, their limitations around throughput—such as Ethereum's ~15 TPS—create latency and throughput bottlenecks that are incompatible with the real-time validation demands of a global identity layer. Sharding solutions, like those proposed by QuarkChain or Radix, introduce horizontal scaling but increase complexity in cross-shard identity synchronization. Symbol’s dual-layer architecture, discussed in Understanding Symbol: The Future of Blockchain Technology, attempts to address this through parallel chains with defined roles, yet faces limitations around consensus finality and cross-chain state consistency.

Consensus mechanisms are another critical vector in this scalability-security equation. Proof of Work, while robustly secure, is computationally infeasible for scalable identity checks. Proof of Stake variants (e.g., Ouroboros, Tendermint) improve efficiency, but introduce validator centralization risks which weaken trust assumptions, particularly dangerous in identity-centric use cases. Asymmetric stronghold requirements can exclude smaller validators, affecting collusion resistance.

Layer-2s and rollups (e.g., zk-rollups or optimistic rollups) are promising, yet introduce data availability and fraud proof challenges. Zero-knowledge proofs are theoretically ideal for preserving privacy during identity attestations, but their verification cost and complex mathematical construction hinder real-time use cases outside of experimental pilots. Furthermore, zk-based systems can lead to operator centralization through sequencer dependencies—a clear departure from ideal decentralization.

Engineering trade-offs extend beyond architecture. On-chain storage of even minimal PII-related metadata triggers state bloat concerns, complicates pruning strategies, and has long-term implications on gas economics. Off-chain schemes, such as hash-linking or DIDs referencing IPFS, solve storage, but raise trust anchor and retrieval availability concerns. Ensuring availability without creating a single point of failure remains an open design tension.

Systems aiming for fast finality to support instant ID verifications must also grapple with probabilistic confirmation trade-offs. This is non-trivial for sectors like fintech or health, where reorgs could invalidate previous identity validations. Protocols attempting to bridge these domains without sacrificing consistency must make architectural compromises that test the very benefits touted by decentralization.

As network activity scales, so too does the economic incentive for majority collusion—especially in identity systems where verified accounts may correlate with access to legal, financial, or voting privileges. This elevates the attack surface, necessitating countermeasures that don't impede the very throughput needed for adoption.

Next, we’ll dissect the regulatory and compliance risks inherent in implementing verified identity protocols on immutable, borderless networks.

Part 7 – Regulatory & Compliance Risks

Regulatory and Compliance Risks: Barriers to Blockchain-Based Digital Identity

Jurisdictional inconsistencies remain one of the most formidable challenges in deploying blockchain-based digital identity systems. Regulatory regimes around data privacy, financial compliance, and digital identification differ widely. While the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) emphasizes user control over personally identifiable information, many decentralized identity (DID) implementations, particularly those using immutable public ledgers, raise critical incompatibility issues—specifically the “right to be forgotten.” These contradictions create enormous uncertainty for builders, particularly if digital identity data includes biometric or financial markers.

In the U.S., where regulation tends to lag innovation, the classification of identity tokens—as utility, security, or something novel—could have wide-ranging implications. Should an architectural component of an ID protocol fall under the scope of securities law, identity networks could face crippling registration and reporting requirements. A similar dilemma looms over Know Your Customer (KYC) implementations: while decentralized identity could theoretically improve KYC efficiency and reduce fraud, its permissionless nature could conflict with FinCEN or FATF guidelines. This ambiguity is throttling bank-grade adoption, pushing some networks to adopt synthetic compliance models—pre-wrapped credential systems with built-in jurisdictional restrictions.

Cross-border identity verification intensifies these conflicts. Without harmonized standards for DID issuance and presentation, a credential valid in one jurisdiction may lack legal standing elsewhere. Multinational enterprises exploring blockchain ID as a compliance tool—especially in the finance and healthcare sectors—are navigating a minefield of conflicting legal interpretations. For projects exploring Symbol’s multilayered ledger architecture, for instance, regulatory compatibility across different legal zones remains a design concern as discussed in Unlocking the Potential of XYM in Blockchain.

Historical crypto regulation also casts long shadows. The U.S. SEC’s enforcement practices during the ICO era illustrate how emergent decentralized technologies are met not with new governance structures, but with retrofitted legal tools. This legacy could inadvertently ensnare decentralized identity platforms in legal purgatory, especially if judged by outdated identity verification standards.

Finally, government intervention isn’t merely hypothetical. Centralized digital identity systems (e.g., eIDAS in the EU, Aadhaar in India) pose significant political threat to decentralized alternatives. Governments may exert pressure through national ID standards or interoperability mandates that render nonconforming blockchain-based IDs legally inert. As state-backed digital identity efforts expand, decentralized projects face increasing risk of being outlawed, deplatformed, or made irrelevant.

Part eight will dissect the economic and financial implications of blockchain-based identity systems—both for traditional identity vendors and emergent decentralized ecosystems.

Part 8 – Economic & Financial Implications

Economic and Financial Ripples of Blockchain-Based Digital Identity: A Market Redefinition in the Making

The integration of blockchain-based digital identity (BDID) functionality has the potential to fundamentally disrupt legacy financial infrastructure by altering both the issuance and verification of individual identity. Traditional KYC/AML operations, a multi-billion-dollar industry dependent on centralized intermediaries and third-party verification platforms, are facing inevitable obsolescence. Institutional onboarding, lending, and insurance—sectors burdened by regulatory friction—stand to be radically streamlined through persistent, user-owned credentials anchored on-chain.

For institutional investors, this creates a double-edged scenario. On the upside, reduced compliance costs and improved onboarding efficiency could improve margins across fintech and DeFi verticals. BDID-aligned protocols may become strategic acquisition targets, and liquidity injection into ID-aligned Layer 1s and privacy rail builders might find long-term upside. However, legacy stakeholders tied to identity service revenues—credit bureaus, centralized ID verifiers, and traditional banking compliance teams—are directly threatened, prompting potential pushback at the regulatory level.

Developers can occupy a unique leverage point. By building composable SDKs that integrate decentralized identity stacks with wallet infrastructure and on-chain permissioning systems, dev teams could become indispensable to dApp verticals spanning DeFi, GameFi, and DAOs. However, the trade-off emerges in the form of increased attack surfaces: verifiable credentials become high-value targets for smart contract manipulation, and if schemas are poorly designed, identity reusability across protocols may lead to unintended identity correlation or deanonymization—a direct contradiction to the privacy ethos of Web3.

For traders, BDID integration brings short- and long-term volatility. Projects that incorporate zero-knowledge proofs, verifiable credentials, or identity attestations into their protocol logic may garner attention in speculative cycles, especially if these features unlock jurisdictional compliance or institutional access. However, this also introduces regulatory arbitrage risks. Accessibility to anonymized trading venues may decrease as identity requirements scale, and privacy coins or mixers could face indirect exposure if linked wallets are tied to BDID-disclosing wallets.

A case in point is Symbol's approach to enterprise-grade blockchain optimization, where verifiable metadata tagging offers new layers of compliance without sacrificing decentralization. Those interested in how such tokenomics structures align with BDID systems can explore this nuanced angle in Decoding XYM Tokenomics: Symbol's Enterprise Advantage, which contextualizes value accrual within ID-centric infrastructure deployments.

The financialization of identity itself—especially when tokenized or staked—threatens to introduce speculative behaviors into a fundamental human right. Reputation markets and identity score systems could become collateralized, manipulated, or disproportionately influence access to capital. These feedback loops will have profound effects not just on the economy, but society itself—a subject that unfolds in the next section.

Part 9 – Social & Philosophical Implications

Blockchain Identity Verification and Its Economic Shockwave: Winners, Losers, and Market Shift

While blockchain-powered digital identity verification promises revolutionary change, its widespread implementation is an economic disruptor hiding in plain sight. The intrusion into incumbent-sovereign identity frameworks, enterprise-grade KYC providers, and centralized data brokers could displace billions in value, altering capital flows across cybersecurity, fintech, and regulatory technology sectors.

For institutional investors, the commodification of identity primitives as on-chain verifiables creates both risk and novel high alpha. Traditional players like Equifax or Okta, long tied to rent-based models, may see their relevance wane. This opens the door for digital-native ecosystems leveraging zero-knowledge proofs, interoperable attestations, and identity-oracle integrations — all potentially investable via tokenized exposure or venture allocation. Early exposure to protocols integrating identity as a service (IDaaS) across multiple dApps positions stakeholders to leverage second-order tailwinds, particularly where identity solutions also enable DeFi access, decentralized employment, or borderless healthcare.

Developers, particularly in privacy-conscious environments, gain the most near-term traction. Democratized identity layers empower devs to build permissioned access models without relying on centralized OAuth structures. But economic incentives remain fragmented. Few protocols reward builders for attestation issuance or verification work, creating tokenomic asymmetries where the cost of participation may exceed value capture. Identity-as-infrastructure networks must overcome adoption bottlenecks and liquidity issues — especially for protocols attempting to integrate these identity rails across siloed chains.

Markets for identity tokens or DAO-issued credentials introduce high-risk speculative behavior. Traders may eye governance tokens of identity-driven projects as narrative momentum surges — but these assets are often liquidity-thin and airdrop-fueled, lacking sustainable economic flows. Without organic demand from enterprise integrations or API monetization, identity verification tokens risk mirroring the pitfalls of over-financialized utility layers.

At the regulatory edge, sovereign nations may react defensively. If widely adopted, decentralized IDs (DIDs) could marginalize national ID issuance and KYC monopolies. This presents macro risks for economies reliant on state-run registries or compliant-fintech ecosystems. Inversely, those who embrace DIDs may attract privacy-first capital and reduce onboarding friction for foreign investors.

Projects tackling economic identity via interoperable DID layers — such as those critiqued in Examining XYM Key Critiques of Symbol Blockchain — offer a testbed for integrating value and identity natively. Their success or failure will shape market assumptions around digital identity’s capital efficiency.

Understanding the larger trust shift involved opens the door to broader discussions—what does this mean for privacy, autonomy, and our evolving digital selves?

Part 10 – Final Conclusions & Future Outlook

Final Reflections on the Blockchain-Digital Identity Nexus: Possibility or Missed Opportunity?

The exploration of blockchain in digital identity verification revealed both its transformative potential and sobering limitations. On paper, decentralized identity (DID) frameworks rewrite trust dynamics, allowing users to own, control, and selectively disclose their data with cryptographically verifiable authenticity. Concepts like SSI (self-sovereign identity) and verifiable credentials fundamentally challenge today's centralized KYC paradigms.

Yet, the friction lies in execution. As previously examined, interoperability between DID systems is still fragile. Protocols like W3C's DID standard exist, but cohesion across chains is lacking. Networks like Symbol, with its enterprise-first infrastructure explored in Unlocking the Potential of XYM in Blockchain, hint at deployment readiness, but live integrations are few and fragmented.

From a best-case perspective, a widely adopted DID layer across DeFi and Web3 could eliminate reliance on third-party identity gatekeepers. It might resolve rug pulls and Sybil attacks via decentralized reputation metrics, or automate multiparty compliance with tools like zero-knowledge proofs. In this world, the verified identity is no longer a centralized bottleneck but a fluid, privacy-preserving asset.

Conversely, the worst-case? Oversaturation of incompatible identity protocols, regulatory rejection due to insufficient AML alignment, and user apathy driven by poor UX. Identity fatigue in DeFi is real—users are already conditioned to anonymity or fragmented wallet-based access. Without incentives, uptake will lag. Governments and corporates may favor permissioned hybrids, neutralizing the decentralization ethos altogether.

Regulatory ambiguity remains a key blocker. Can truly decentralized identity coexist with jurisdictional compliance? What entities are liable if a DID platform enables fraudulent behavior? Without legal clarity, most major platforms will hesitate to integrate decentralized identity at scale.

To bridge the divide, several things must happen: seamless UX across wallets and platforms, privacy-preserving compliance tools, robust multi-chain compatibility, and major platform backing. Identity must not be a separate experience—it must be embedded, standardized, and near invisible to the end user.

Ultimately, this invites a harder question: will blockchain-based digital identity define a new trustless future or merely join the graveyard of brilliant, fragmented experiments? Whether this utility becomes foundational or forgotten depends less on technical feasibility—and more on governance, incentive alignment, and collective will.

If blockchain has unlocked programmable money, could identity be its next trust layer—or is the window for disruption already closing?

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com