CIP-0170? | KERI-backed metadata attestations

[Kammerlo]

This CIP proposes a standardized mechanism to embed KERI (Key Event Receipt Infrastructure) identifiers within Cardano transaction metadata, enabling verifiable identity binding for on-chain actions.
By leveraging existing KERI and ACDC standards from the Trust over IP Foundation, this proposal enables entities including legal entities, organizations, DAOs, and individuals to cryptographically prove their identity through credential chains.

This CIP enables Cardano to support enterprise and regulatory use cases requiring audit trails, authorized signatories, and identities. Initial implementations are being developed by reeve.technology and veridian.id, with reference examples included for vLEI credential chains.

---

(content directory with latest rendered proposal)

[rphair]

Marking Triage for general review at or before the next CIP meeting: https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/123

Now that the content is stable please @Kammerlo avoid further force-push unless you have a way of also including the commits generated via review through GitHub UI in that push. 🙏

[rphair]

Suggested change

	## Reference Example - vLEI
	### Reference Example - vLEI

I can't imagine this going anywhere but the Specification but please feel free to move accordingly if not... in any case it's too detailed (and not standard enough) to be a top-level section.

[rphair]

@Kammerlo our consensus from the CIP meeting today is for this to remain Unconfirmed while we collect more reviews. The work of the CF in this field is well appreciated but of course we'd want to see participation from other agencies about how they might use this: to support breadth beyond Veridian and Reeve apps already identified (even if if not pursuing Active status which would likely be premature).

Editors would first need to see a proper Path to Active developed: perhaps as a result of that community discussion... leading to a resolution of #1113 (comment) which is currently the most significant review point.

[Kammerlo]

Hello, I just added based on the feedback a path to active. But for achieving the path to active, we need a "temporary" CIP-Number or similar to use as a metadata label. We plan to use this CIP soon to proof it is useful before becoming active.

Could anyone help me out? I could also just pick a metadata label number, but having this in line with a CIP number would help to not become messy.

[rphair]

@Kammerlo I've assigned 170 while leaving this Unconfirmed pending (as per editor resolution from last CIP meeting) a a well-rounded response to #1113 (review) ... so please note as time goes by — after this is addressed & we continue to other review points — to ping me if the status isn't changed to Confirmed in due course (since normally that tag correlates with assignment of a CIP number).

And please also change the containing directory to CIP-0170 before we all forget to do that 😅