In this exclusive interview, Nanak Nihal Khalsa, Co-Founder of the Holonym Foundation, shares his perspective on critical innovations shaping digital identity and blockchain security. Addressing recent vulnerabilities highlighted by the Bybit exploit, Khalsa explains the breakthrough security measures in Human Wallet’s alpha version, explores the transformative impact of Holonym’s acquisition of Gitcoin Passport, and outlines how technologies like trusted execution environments (TEEs), two-party computation (2PC), and transaction simulation are raising the bar in wallet safety. He further emphasizes the importance of Sybil-resistant identity solutions and reveals how human.tech is positioned
Q1. As the Bybit exploit uncovered the vulnerabilities existing in the overall wallet security, particularly blind signing, what measures does Human Wallet’s latest alpha version take to resolve this issue and prevent such attacks in the future?
Human Wallet is the first to introduce two factor authorization, which is not the same as authentication, with a hardware wallet. In short, this lets you use a hardware wallet to sign a human-readable summary rather than signing the transaction itself.
Q2. What is Holonym Foundation’s plan to redefine identity verification along with privacy preservation through Gitcoin passport acquisition and human.tech launch?
Holonym is redefining identity verification by combining privacy preservation with verifiable uniqueness. With our acquisition of Gitcoin Passport, we’re enhancing Proof of Personhood in a way that protects user privacy while ensuring Sybil resistance. The launch of human.tech takes this further by providing a decentralized, secure alternative. We’ve proven that privacy-first digital ID is not only possible but already profitable, with real adoption at scale. This is the foundation for a human-centric future of identity verification.
Q3. How do the trusted execution environments (TEEs), transaction simulation, and two-party computation (2PC) improve wallet security?
The goal is to create a world where if you’re an advanced user you can see what you’re signing on your hardware wallet, and even if you’re a beginner without a hardware wallet you can still be safe. Currently, we have neither in the DeFi world. But there’s one solution to both which is: to split the key up so that the user always controls one part and a TEE controls the other part. And if the user has a hardware wallet, establish a secure communication channel between the TEE and the hardware wallet to confirm transactions. The TEE can perform complex transaction simulation and send the human-readable output to the hardware wallet for a confirmation. 2PC combines the outputs from the user and the TEE to create a signature for the whole wallet.
Q4. With the provision of a Sybil-resistant solution for identity, how does Human Passport outcompete identity protocols such as Worldcoin in privacy, security, and adoption?
Would rather not talk about competitors 😉
Human passport is about choice. Some people like iris scans; others find them invasive. Same goes for any form of ID verification. Human Passport is about choice; you don’t need to depend on one form of ID for to prove you’re a unique person.
Human Passport is a part of the broader human.tech product suiet by Holonym, who has issued over 34 million credentials (more than anyone else in the space), and has already distributed almost 400 million US dollars in capital. All of this without a token.
Q5. While the Human Network is developed on the Eigenlayer, what is the contribution of Eigenlayer’s restaking system in human.tech’s infrastructure?
The most interesting side effect of restaking to threshold cryptography is that it enables a permissionless pool of operators that still have high reputation and stake. Even without slashing, threshold cryptography can benefit from the fact that the top operators in staking protocols are generally high-reputation and doxxed, yet still permissionlessly selected. Human network is not slashsable because it is threshold cryptography, yet Eigenlayer and Symbiotic allowed us to decentralize it anyway since the top operator set has this property of high trust even though it is selected permissionlessly.
Q6. Based on the significant attention given to digital human rights, how do human.tech guarantee the censorship-resistance and decentralization of identity verification?
It’s about plurality of options to verify ID, self-custodial storage of credentials, and zero-knowledge proofs to preserv privacy. Allowing multiple types of identity prevent a single company or government from censoring people in the global economy. Giving users the custody of their credentials prevents data breaches and surveillance form server-side storage of credentials. Zero-knowledge proofs let users prove only what they need to show, further preventing surveillance and data breaches.
Q7. Can you guide us on the role of deepfake-resistant Proof of Personhood and quantum resistance in shaping digital identity’s future?
It’s imperative that proof of personhood does not fall prey to deepfakes or AI in general. If a tool can be thwarted by AI, it will. We have seen a profusion of attempts to try to bypass personhood tools in creative ways. Quantum resistance is a slightly more distant threat; but data today are being harvested in the hopes that later quantum computers can crack the encryption on them. So identity data even once encrypted should not be stored publicly. One day, the encryption could break.
Q8. From this point onward, how do you perceive human.tech’s vision for development in the digital identity landscape in the upcoming years?
We plan to increase privacy and accessibility. These are our goals. Identity data needs to be kept safe from prying eyes. And a world where everyone has access to identity, everyone should be able to access finance and a wide array of services.
