DIDs Are Cool. We Didn’t Need Them — In a Moon Chooses Simplicity

A deliberate shrug at the new shiny thing

It has been reported that the team behind In a Moon reviewed decentralized identifiers (DIDs) and found them thoughtful, elegant—and ultimately heavier than necessary for their problem. DIDs solve a real problem: portable, self-sovereign identity. But do you always need a whole new identity stack when the web already carries the clues? Sometimes the answer is no. Cue XKCD and a satisfied shrug.

Why they passed on DIDs

It has been reported that In a Moon rejected DIDs not because they’re bad, but because they introduced friction in the wrong places: a new identifier format, a new resolution layer, a new trust framework. What the team needed instead was legibility. Think regular expressions, not a full grammar—imperfect, but usable on day one. It’s pragmatic: make the machines read what humans already understand.

The “subject” primitive and the attribution layer

So they built a tiny primitive: subject = namespace:id. Examples are simple—twitter:jack, github:torvalds, email:matt@example.com. It has been reported that this feeds an attribution system (a “kudos” record) that rewards contributions on the web—less transclusion, more credit. Call it a cruder Ted Nelson transclusion or a friendlier ASCAP for the open web. No global resolution protocol required up front; namespaces are interpreted internally and expanded as needed.

Not perfect, but practical

It has been reported that In a Moon knows a single identifier isn’t enough—people have many emails, accounts, domains, repos—so they record and verify multiple IDs to build a composite identity. Parsing, control validation, and namespacing will tighten over time. The emotional core here is clear: relief. Sometimes the bravest engineering move is to stop inventing and start reading.

Sources: inamoon.com, Hacker News