Your framing is inconsistent. You pitch 'sovereign identity' to empower individuals, but your business model relies on selling 'capacity' to governments and banks who want more control, not less. The analogy to SWIFT, a centralized cooperative, directly contradicts your decentralized-sounding pitch. You're building a centralized trust directory, not a truly sovereign system.
Your entire strategy relies on being the 'neutral third party.' This neutrality is temporary. The moment you achieve critical mass, your powerful bank and government clients have every incentive to fork your directory, convert it into a non-profit cooperative they control, and cut you out entirely. Your path to becoming a utility is also your path to becoming obsolete.
If your only real asset is the temporary inability of your powerful customers to cooperate, what happens when the cost of replacing you becomes lower than the fees you charge them?
ou have a clear, contrarian insight into the coordination failure of Latin American institutions. Your go-to-market is clever. However, the business model seems built to be eventually disintermediated by the very consortium it creates. You're building a kingdom on land you don't own.
The strategy to become the de facto standard by exploiting institutional coordination failure is strong. You could capture a niche and become the default, but your long-term defensibility as a for-profit entity is questionable.
The idea that powerful, competing institutions will pay a neutral startup to solve a coordination problem they can't solve themselves is a genuine insight. It's a truth most people don't see.
You are not creating a new technology (W3C VCs, DIDs). You are creating a new network on top of existing standards. This is an execution and business model innovation, not a technological one. It's more of a '1 to N' play in a new market.