- Institutional / JVMTM / reserve-provenance / GRU transport + standards JSON - Validation and verify scripts (Blockscout labels, x402, GRU preflight, P1 local path) - Wormhole wiring in AGENTS, MCP_SETUP, MASTER_INDEX, 04-configuration README - Meta docs, integration gaps, live verification log, architecture updates - CI validate-config workflow updates Operator/LAN items, submodule working trees, and public token-aggregation edge routes remain follow-up (see TODOS_CONSOLIDATED P1). Made-with: Cursor
3.4 KiB
3.4 KiB
DBIS Hyperledger Identity Stack Decision
Last updated: 2026-03-29
Purpose: Make the Aries / AnonCreds / Ursa decision path explicit for the DBIS RTGS program so these layers do not remain vague “maybe required” items.
Current conclusion
For the current DBIS RTGS program, the identity stack is not yet frozen as part of the canonical RTGS rail, but the repo and live environment now prove:
- a deployed Aries agent layer on primary
6500 - a deployed AnonCreds-capable wallet path via ACA-Py
askar-anoncreds
The repo and live environment still do not yet prove:
- a deployed AnonCreds issuance / verification flow in the RTGS business path
- an explicit Ursa runtime dependency that operators must manage directly
Recommended decision framework
Option A — Minimal first production slice
Use:
- Chain 138 / Besu
- FireFly primary
- OMNL / Fineract
- selected HYBX sidecars
Do not require Aries / AnonCreds / Ursa in the first production slice.
Use this option if:
- the initial RTGS program does not require decentralized credential exchange
- institution identity and compliance are satisfied through existing banking / regulatory processes
- the team wants to avoid holding up settlement on unresolved identity-stack deployment work
Option B — Identity-enhanced RTGS slice
Include:
- Aries agents
- AnonCreds issuer / holder / verifier roles
- Ursa-backed cryptographic path if required by the selected stack
Use this option if:
- the RTGS design requires verifiable credentials as a first-class runtime dependency
- participant admission, authorization, or compliance checks depend on decentralized identity flows
- DBIS wants credential verification to be part of the operational settlement path, not only a future capability
Recommended default
Recommended default: Option A for the first production slice.
Reason:
- Aries / AnonCreds runtime is now deployed, but it is not yet integrated into the canonical RTGS flow.
- Requiring full credential issuance / verification now would still expand the critical path materially.
- The current gating problems are still in banking-rail orchestration and interoperability, not in simply hosting an identity-agent runtime.
What must be decided if Option B is chosen
Aries
- agent placement
- wallet / DID model
- mediation / routing model
- protocol set used in production
- operational ownership and observability
AnonCreds
- issuer role
- holder role
- verifier role
- schema and credential-definition lifecycle
- revocation model
Ursa
- whether it is an explicit operator-managed dependency
- whether it is only an indirect library/runtime concern
- what cryptographic controls or attestations it adds to the program
Production-gate rule
- If Option A is chosen:
- Aries / AnonCreds / Ursa are marked
out of scope for first production slice - they do not block first RTGS activation
- Aries / AnonCreds / Ursa are marked
- If Option B is chosen:
- none of them can stay as planning-only items
- they must have:
- deployment runbooks
- runtime health checks
- ownership
- end-to-end validation