ACM Interactions

Self-sovereign identity (SSI) promises users full control over their digital identities, but many struggle to feel true ownership. The gap between technical control and psychological ownership raises critical questions about usability, trust, and institutional support. If SSI is to succeed, it must move beyond decentralization alone and account for human factors.

The Ownership Paradox in Digital Identity

Digital identity solutions have transformed how people prove who they are online. Individuals rely on digital credentials to verify their identity when accessing financial services, higher education, and government resources [1]. Current systems, however, are deeply flawed, plagued by security vulnerabilities, privacy concerns, and dependence on centralized authorities.

Self-sovereign identity has been proposed as an alternative: a system that shifts control from institutions to individuals, allowing users to store, manage, and share their identity data without intermediaries [2]. At first glance, this approach seems to resolve many issues associated with traditional identity models. It prioritizes autonomy, reduces third-party surveillance, and grants users full authority over their credentials [3].

Yet, a fundamental problem remains: While SSI grants technical ownership, users often lack a personal sense of ownership. Many struggle with the complexity of decentralized credentials, feel uncertain about the security of their data, and still seek validation from trusted institutions. The assumption that decentralization alone leads to empowerment is misleading. True ownership requires more than technical control: It requires usability, flexibility, and trust.

Psychological ownership: The missing elements in SSI. Ownership is not only a legal or technical status but a psychological state. People feel ownership over something when they perceive control, familiarity, and security in their ability to manage it. Five dimensions of psychological ownership [4,5] help explain why SSI struggles to foster this experience.

Self-identity: When digital identity feels distant. For most people, identity is tied to physical objects: a passport, a driver’s license, or a birth certificate. These feel owned because they are tangible, with your photo and name printed on them. Digital identity, by contrast, remains abstract, stored in an app or cryptographic ledger, making it harder to establish an emotional connection. Many users see SSI credentials as a useful addition rather than a replacement for physical documents.

If digital identity remains intangible, how can it foster a deeper sense of ownership? Design matters. Visual, biometric, and interactive elements in digital identity wallets could strengthen the sense that digital credentials are as personal as their physical counterparts.

Self-efficacy: Complexity undermines control. SSI relies on advanced cryptography, requiring users to navigate decentralized identifiers (DIDs), verifiable credentials, and key management. While enhancing security, this complexity creates usability barriers. Instead of feeling empowered, many users feel overwhelmed.

For SSI to achieve its goal of user empowerment, simplicity must be a priority. Identity systems should be intuitive, with clear explanations, step-by-step guidance, and safeguards allowing users interact with their digital identity without needing specialized technical knowledge.

Accountability: The burden of full responsibility. SSI shifts responsibility from institutions to individuals. While empowering in theory, this creates new risks. If a user loses access to their digital wallet, who helps them recover it? If fraud occurs, who intervenes? SSI places the entire burden on individuals, unlike traditional identity systems, where institutions play a role in protecting users.

Many users do not want full accountability. A hybrid approach, in which institutions provide optional safeguards such as backup recovery or credential verification, balances autonomy with safety.

Autonomy: The paradox of individual independence and institutional dependance. SSI is often framed as eliminating intermediaries, yet identity itself is relational: It only has value when recognized by others. Users may control their digital credentials, but their utility depends on governments, employers, and financial institutions accepting them.

This creates a paradox: While SSI offers individual independence, it does not eliminate institutional dependence for validation. The challenge is interoperability and standards, ensuring that SSI credentials are widely accepted so they are practically useful.

Territoriality: Security and data loss concerns. People protect what they perceive as “theirs.” Yet, many worry that losing access to their digital identity could result in permanent exclusion from essential services. The idea that identity data exists only on a personal device without a centralized backup feels risky.

To build trust, SSI systems need secure, user-friendly recovery mechanisms such as multi-device authentication, biometric protection, or institutional fallback options. These could help reassure users that they will not be locked out of their identities due to a technical failure or lost device.

Implications

The future of digital identity depends not only on who owns the data: It depends on how people experience ownership. If users do not feel confident managing their credentials, SSI will not be adopted, no matter how secure or decentralized it is. To address this, SSI must evolve in three ways.

Prioritize usability. SSI will fail if it remains accessible only to highly technical users. Identity wallets must be designed for clarity, ease of use, and guided onboarding. Instead of requiring users to understand cryptography, systems should present intuitive, familiar interfaces.

Offer a flexible approach to self-sovereignty. Not all users want full control over their digital identity. A tiered SSI model could accommodate different levels of trust:

·      Full SSI: Users manage their credentials independently.

·      Hybrid SSI: Institutions provide optional backup and verification services.

·      Institutional SSI: Traditional entities manage digital identities while embedding SSI principles.

This approach would allow gradual adoption, making SSI adaptable to a wider range of user needs.

Build trust through institutional partnerships. Users often feel more comfortable when recognized institutions play a role in identity management. Governments could issue verifiable credentials, universities could provide digital diplomas, and financial institutions could offer SSI-based verification. Embedding SSI within trusted structures can encourage adoption.

Conclusion: Rethinking Ownership in SSI

SSI has the potential to revolutionize digital identity, but its success depends on more than technical sovereignty. Users must feel confident, capable, and secure in managing their identities. If SSI focuses only on decentralization, it risks alienating users who are unprepared for full responsibility. A more human-centred approach which considers usability, institutional trust, and autonomy can move SSI beyond the illusion of ownership to deliver real, tangible user empowerment. Without this shift, SSI risks remaining an idealistic vision rather than a widely adopted solution for digital identity.

Endnotes

1. Rieger, A., Roth, T., Sedlmeir, J., Weigl, L., and Fridgen, G. Not yet another digital identity. Nature Human Behaviour 6, 3 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562...

2. Sedlmeir, J., Smethurst, R., Rieger, A., and Fridgen, G. Digital identities and verifiable credentials. Business and Information Systems Engineering 63, 5 (2021), 603–613. DOI: 10.1007/s12599-021-00722-y.

3. Sartor, S., Sedlmeir, J., Rieger, A., and Roth, T. Love at first sight? A user experience study of self-sovereign identity wallets. ECIS 2022 Research Papers; https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2...

4. Kuzminykh, A. and Cauchard, J.R. Be mine: Contextualization of ownership research in HCI. Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2020, 1–9. DOI: 10.1145/3334480.3383058.

5. Eun Song, J., You, J., and Lee, J. “I might be using his… but it is also mine!”: Ownership and control in accounts designed for sharing. Proc. of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2021, Article 178, 1–13; https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445301

Liudmila Zavolokina