What the European Wallet Is, and Why Ours Is Not One Yet

Nothing on this page is legal advice. It describes a framework and our position against it, and any obligation you have is between you and whoever regulates you.

What the framework actually asks for

A wallet in that sense is not an application with a nice name. It is a set of obligations.

Hold credentials the person controls, issued by parties the framework recognises.

Present them selectively, disclosing what a verifier needs and not the rest.

Bind them to the holder, so a stolen credential is inert.

Interoperate, across two accepted credential formats, two presentation protocols and a trust infrastructure spanning member states.

And be certified, by a scheme, against criteria, with the result published by somebody other than the wallet's author.

Where we stand against each, measured

Hold: no. The wallet keeps a catalogue and no credential body, read from the schema, so the first obligation is unmet at the storage layer.

Present selectively: no, which follows from the first. The share button produces an unsigned summary and says so itself.

Bind to the holder: implemented, unused. The mechanism exists in the shared package and this wallet does not call it.

Interoperate: partly. We implement one of the two accepted credential formats and none of the other, measured by search with a control.

Certified: no. No conformance run, no submission, no listing, and no certification of any kind.

And one more gap worth naming: a search for passkey, WebAuthn and FIDO across this wallet returns zero files, while the reference implementations treat platform-authenticator key custody as foundational.

What is already built, because absences alone would misdescribe us

A credential format the framework accepts, issued and verified by our shared package, with selective disclosure and holder binding implemented at that layer.

A presentation protocol implementation on the verification side, which is the half of the exchange a relying party runs.

An identifier method registered in the W3C DID Method Registry, with documents that resolve publicly today.

That is a real starting position and it is not a claim to conformance.

What we will not say

Not that we are aligned, compatible or conformant. Those are words with an owner, and the owner publishes a list.

Not that we hold qualified status of any kind, and not that any part of our stack is certified.

Not that a deadline makes us relevant. A date in a regulation creates obligations for regulated parties, not credibility for whoever mentions it loudest.

For a holder, what this means today

Do not expect a credential from this wallet to work in a European flow. It cannot be presented at all yet, and nothing about the format alone closes that.