Sxore is disappointing not in itself, but mainly because it comes from Sxip, the very company whose mantra is “user-centric identity, decentralized identity”. We are looking forward to take a look at the very promising and upcoming release of Sxip 2.0, but with Sxore they missed the opportunity to test Identity 2.0 against a real-world problem.

My understanding of Sxore process is:

1. get credentials proving you are human from your identity provider (as of today: only Sxip);
2. read blogs;
3. if you want to leave a comment on a (Sxore enabled) blog, send the comment along with your credentials to a validation authority (as of today: only Sxore.com);
4. the validation authority checks against the blog comment settings (whitelists, black lists, …) and forwards your comment to the blog or discards it.

From a blog author perspective, the first problem with Sxore, not too dangerous but highly inconvenient, is the following:

Being redirected to a third-party site to post a comment is a little ‘odd’ and inconsistent with user expectations.

In spite of the many claims about “user-centric relationships”, the reader/commenter is not at the center of Sxore: he can comment/tag/rate the blog posts, but he knows nothing of his reputation from the blog perspective. They say that a Sxore reputation is portable. Ok, but what does it mean? I read all the available documentation, but this is still obscure to me.

I thought that Identity 2.0 meant coupling the disruptive power of online collaboration and web technologies with user centric digital identity protocols.

But Sxore does not fit at all in this definition.

However Sxip is a brilliant company and I hope they could fullfill all their visions about Idenitity 2.0.