Lots of good analysis here, with the main flaw (imho) coming in last*. The WC team may be book smart, but not experienced or wise, especially in building complex systems with high integrity and assurance. They cut too many corners, take too many intellectual shortcuts, assume away too many hard problems, minimize important constraints inherent in their chosen architecture, and clearly haven't really thought it all through. Wishful thinking is no substitute for sound engineering. All red flags of a project doomed to fail.

*> A black market for Worldcoin accounts has already emerged [1] in Cambodia, Nigeria, and elsewhere, where people are being paid to sign up for a World ID and then transfer ownership to buyers elsewhere — many of whom are in China, where Worldcoin is restricted. There is no ongoing verification process to ensure that a World ID continues to belong to the person who signed up for it, and no way for the eyeball-haver to recover an account that is under another person’s control. Worldcoin acknowledges that they have no clue how to resolve the issue: “Innovative ideas in mechanism design and the attribution of social relationships will be necessary.“ The lack of ongoing verification also means that there is no mechanism by which people can be removed from the program once they pass away, but perhaps Worldcoin will add survivors’ benefits to its list of use cases and call that a feature.

Relatively speaking, scanning your iris and selling the account is fairly benign. But depending on the popularity of Worldcoin, the eventual price of WLD, and the types of things a World ID can be used to accomplish, the incentives to gain access to others’ accounts could become severe. Coercion at the individual or state level is absolutely within the realm of possibility, and could become dangerous.

[1]:https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=sam-altmans-worldcoin-proje...