24K/ Dissertation Study on Adoption of SSI Digital Wallet

From IIW

Dissertation Study on Adoption of SSI Digital Wallet

Thursday 24K

Convener: Kerri Lemoie

Notes-taker: Bruce Conrad

Tags for the session - technology discussed/ideas considered:

  1. ssiadoption

Discussion notes, key understandings, outstanding questions, observations, and, if appropriate to this discussion: action items, next steps

Link to Kerri Lemoie Slide Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BxFtjqypzPfeSe5Bbatl4NAPXn3lixWfWicdMNPOqQY/edit#slide=id.gcd69ee338d_0_288

Perceived benefit + Perceived ease of use => Behavioral intention

Her hypotheses: (slide 13)

H1: Perceived usefulness will have a positive effect on behavioral intention to use a self-sovereign identity digital wallet.

H2: Perceived ease of use will have a positive effect on behavioral intention to use a self-sovereign identity digital wallet.

H3: Trustworthiness will have a positive effect on behavioral intention to use a self-sovereign identity digital wallet.

H3a: Trustworthiness will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness.

Methodology: anonymous online survey using design fiction (think “Star Trek”)

(slide 14)

Web page proclaim.io/study/ used in survey

Story told, set in the year 2031, followed by questions

Survey ran for one week.

See results (slide 15) H1+, H2-, H3+, H3a+

And slide 16.

Biggest factors leading to trustworthiness were “access” and “protect.”

Freeform comments (slide 21)

Respondents got the advantages

Lots of worry about lost/hacked phone, distrust of company, identity theft, and harmful AI

Question: were respondents knowledgeable about SSI? Were they reflecting about their presence online. Answer: most were somewhat proficient. SSI, block chain, etc. were terms not mentioned at all. Faked SSI verified stamp/seal was there to set some expectations.

Takeaways (from slide 22):

  • Usefulness & convenient

  • Emphasize protection of data & access to data

  • Comparison of SSI to older mental models

  • Educate about SSI and why it is different

Older mental models might not transfer well.

Works now an a badging program, where holder can click on “see the data” to see what is behind the badge earned.

Limitations (slide 23)

Future work (slide 24): we need an Internet self-efficacy scale; real demos; in-person focus groups; more diverse participants

Marc: Helpful to see perceived benefits. Useability, suggest A/B testing would be better. Answer: Probably shouldn’t have tested ease of use in this study.

Riley: Maybe people perceive ease of use is less important than benefits of use.

Discussion of ways of testing useability in user experience. Low vs. high fidelity prototypes.

Perceived ease of use is part of the UTAUT framework used. The embedded webpage was presented in Qualtrics so that it looked mobile.

Leah: sample size? 382 of which 319 after data cleanup. Method partial least squares. PLS-SEM (Structural Equation Modeling (Marc put a link in chat)). Eliminated participants who didn’t answer all the questions.

Phil: anything different you would have done to speed things up? Was done in about a month.

Kristina: very hard to do a study like this without an actual demo. Are the use cases presented in the study web page real? Has been working with open badges, and worked with Manu on verifiable claims. Millions have been issued, but there has been no place where they could be used. Adoption won’t be increased until the systems actually exist and can be used. What would an SSI wallet allow us to do that we can’t do now with other technologies. Hype and excitement vs. actual use.

Simon: Have you considered features from implemented wallets? Did a little bit of this while planning the proposal, but didn’t work closely with any vendors. Limited by funding.

Marc: Would like to be better able to explain how SSI works. But how is understanding how it works more important than what can it do for me? Is how it works important for understanding the benefits? Is SSI different than other products in that way. A: It would be helpful to understand how it is different, at least at some level of detail. How it prevents hacking, etc. Q: engineers consider trustworthiness based on how.

Phil: would you be more likely to try this out if someone trusted recommended it? (doctor, insurer, government, etc.) Is there a particular anchor tenant that would be important, knowing that it is trusted by them and easier to get data from it? Bringing up “safety” is a negative that you then have to quell. A. My argument has been that having a lack of digital literacy leaves you more vulnerable. SSI is different enough that it is even more important here.

Riley: Thanks a lot. A passion area of mine over the last few years. My research gave these comments: as a founder of Trinsic, we have a bunch of data on this. Vast majority (90+%) of those 100,000+ are using a wallet that is part of a domain-specific wallet. Is having all your stuff in one place the best value proposition? The network effect. Did you touch on this in your research? The usefulness of a particular VC is a function of the number of places where I can use them. Chicken and egg problem. No question of the value of VC once it is widely available, but how do we get there? A: This didn’t touch on that, being limited to intention to use, rather than actual usage. No testing of use behavior as such. For some time we won’t see one wallet with everything in it, but will use what we can get.

Vittorio: Tolkein spent a lot of time to flesh out the details of his fictional work. People should care about controlling their identity and identifiers. [hopefully, Vittorio will add his insightful comment here]. What is the task that people cannot do today, but will be able to do with SSI. How do we interest the issuers of VC so that they will give them away? What is it that interests the verifiers to do the work on their side (presumably for free)? Where are the financial incentives? A. in education we issue lots of credentials but no one is using them.

Leah: Why are people not using the educational claims? A: business model disruption. E.x. registrars charge for transcripts. Or maybe they weren’t verificable enough; but no. Probably a lack of understanding and revenue model. In education, entrenchment of how things are done.

Link to Session Zoom Chat Provided by Kerri Lemoie: