Provider at a glance
- Category
- Decentralised Identity
- Official website
- billions.network
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 58 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Billions Network
Proof-of-human network
Decentralised Identity
#6 Overall
Ranked #6 of 8 decentralised identity in the published ranking
58
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Billions Network right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Credential custody & revocation power5/10 here; the category best is 9
- Verification without the vendor5/10 here; the category best is 10
- Biometric & PII handling (documented)4/10 here; Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport) scores 7
- Enforcement record & product continuity4/10 here; Galxe Passport scores 6
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global. Restricted: Venezuela.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best identity provider shows where it lands for you.
What will Billions Network cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Billions Network?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Billions Network
Compare all 4- 4Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport)2 points above · stronger on biometric and pii posture (7 against 4)60
- 5Galxe Passport1 point above · stronger on enforcement and continuity risk (6 against 4)59
- 7Civic (Civic Auth)10 points below · stronger on biometric and pii posture (6 against 4)48$0.00
For your setup
Find out if Billions Network fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Billions Network lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best identity providerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Billions Network ranks #6
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (14.6 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
305+4.805.09#4/8Loading evidence…
255+4.005.010#4/8Loading evidence…
254+3.205.08#5/8Loading evidence…
204+2.565.09#6/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Galxe Passport, #5
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 56–60 and ranks #5–#6
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Billions Network’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Credential custody & revocation power 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Galxe Passport+160#6 → #5
Verification without the vendor 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Galxe Passport+159#6 → #5
Biometric & PII handling (documented) 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Galxe Passport+159#6 → #5
Enforcement record & product continuity 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Galxe Passport+159#6 → #5
Smallest climb: credential custody & revocation power 5 → 6 passes Galxe Passport, #5.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Credential custody & revocation power — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Verification without the vendor — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Biometric & PII handling (documented) — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Enforcement record & product continuity — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The public site sells a token, a user count and an agent-commerce waitlist rather than a rate card: no price appears on the homepage, /wallet, /merchants, /commerce or the docs pages read. The architecture is now documented at docs.billions.network (encrypted cloud-stored credentials, an Identity Verifier Contract on the Billions Network chain), and verification resolves identity state through Billions' own chain RPC. Note the lineage too: the homepage itself reads 'Polygon ID → Privado ID → Billions', so establish which legal entity is counterparty before integrating.
- The developer links on billions.network point to devs.polygonid.com and github.com/0xPolygonID, not docs.privado.id. Read again 15 September 2026: the homepage developer link now goes to docs.billions.network, no longer a Polygon ID namespace.
- The site displays "2,560,606+ Verified users". The magnitude is right; the quoted sentence does not appear. Read again 15 September 2026: the homepage now shows '2.5M+ Humans verified'.
Competitive position
Where Billions Network leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 814.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#6 / 810.9 of 30 · best 19.8
Friction#1 / 82.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Billions Network leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Enforcement record & product continuity#6 / 8
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Galxe Passport#5 of 8 · score 59 · 1.0 point ahead
Billions Network leads on
- Biometric & PII handling (documented)4 vs 3
Galxe Passport leads on
- Enforcement record & product continuity6 vs 4
Largest single reason Galxe Passport is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Galxe Passport has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport)#4 of 8 · score 60 · 2.0 points ahead
Billions Network leads on
- Credential custody & revocation power5 vs 4
- Verification without the vendor5 vs 4
Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport) leads on
- Biometric & PII handling (documented)7 vs 4
- Enforcement record & product continuity5 vs 4
Largest single reason Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport) is ahead: published criteria (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Civic (Civic Auth)#7 of 8 · score 48 · 10.0 points behind
Billions Network leads on
- Credential custody & revocation power5 vs 2
- Verification without the vendor5 vs 2
- Enforcement record & product continuity4 vs 2
Civic (Civic Auth) leads on
- Biometric & PII handling (documented)6 vs 4
Largest single reason Billions Network is ahead: published criteria (+9.6 display points).Scenario cost: Billions Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 58 · gap 23.0Why ENS (as identity layer) ranks above Billions Network
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 23.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisENS (as identity layer)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.919.8−23.1, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisENS (as identity layer)Points
Credential custody & revocation power · w3059−3.84, worse
Verification without the vendor · w2558−2.40, worse
Biometric & PII handling (documented) · w2547−2.40, worse
Enforcement record & product continuity · w2049−3.20, worse
Net5881−23.0
Your scenario
Billions Network is not priced for this scenario
The cheapest published tier that covers your usage. List price before any discount; add-ons priced separately are excluded. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Transactions per year · your input1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 22 October 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median and cheapestNot statedOnly 2 of 8 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
6 of 8 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 22 October 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #5 to #6 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 22 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Credential custody & revocation powerstrength 5 · weight 30Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Verification without the vendorstrength 5 · weight 25Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Biometric & PII handling (documented)strength 4 · weight 25Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Enforcement record & product continuitystrength 4 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Custody failure (Billions Network 5/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Credential custody & revocation power · 30%
- Regulatory failure (Billions Network 4/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Enforcement record & product continuity · 20%
- Exit failure (Billions Network 5/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Verification without the vendor · 25%
- Information failure (Billions Network 4/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Biometric & PII handling (documented) · 25%
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Not published on the pages read (22 October 2026). billions.network has repositioned around an agent-commerce roadmap ("Phase 2: the Agent Economy"; the call to action is "Join the waitlist") and a token ("Trade $BILL"), and the homepage counts "2.5M+ verified users". The /wallet page shows "Coming soon". No verification price, developer rate card or price band appears on the billions.network homepage, /wallet, /merchants or /commerce, or on the docs.billions.network wallet overview, how-the-wallet-works, login-with-billions and verify-proof-of-uniqueness pages; the docs' paid-API pages describe prices integrators set for their own APIs, not a Billions fee. The privacy policy (Version 2.1.0, Last updated 28 April 2026) mentions purchasable vouchers ("To process Premium voucher purchases and issue vouchers") settled as an on-chain stablecoin payment, with no price stated. Cost cannot be compared from published material.Billions Network — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDBillions Network — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Venezuela
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- The Billions Terms (billions.network/terms, Version 2.0.0, Last updated 2 February 2026, read 22 October 2026): "Billions is not available to users who are located in, are citizens of, or access the Platform from sanctioned or restricted jurisdictions, including:" "Afghanistan, Belarus, Burma (Myanmar), Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Nicaragua, North Korea (DPRK), Russia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen." "This includes any jurisdiction subject to sanctions under EU, UN, or equivalent sanctions regimes, as updated from time to time." "Billions may apply IP-based restrictions or other reasonable technical controls to enforce these restrictions." "Certain features, verification methods, or credential issuance may be restricted or unavailable in certain jurisdictions." Government ID verification uses "supported methods such as NFC-enabled passports or Aadhaar QR codes (where available)".
Legal entity on file: Billions Network, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Billions Network: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
9 methodology entries
- 22 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 58, #6 of 8. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.7Forty-one more products are offered only where their own quoted terms serve- fixed 141 country exclusions on 31 rows, each the name of a country the row's own quoted terms exclude: for example Mercuryo Hungary, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia and Morocco; Gemini Custody the United Kingdom, Australia and the EU after its wind-down; Backed xStocks the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, Nigeria, the Philippines and Venezuela.
- changed Thirteen rows list the only countries their terms serve: Coins.ph the Philippines, Spritz bill pay, Brex, Unchained, WisdomTree, Franklin BENJI and AnchorWatch the United States (with its territories for AnchorWatch), PRYPCO Mint the UAE, N26 crypto seven EU countries, Gemini Tokenized Stocks the EU, XNET the US, Canada and the UK, Coldbit Steel and MetaMask Card the countries they list.
- changed Published (no-country) orders do not move. Country results change: in India six categories each lose one row (bill pay, cards, off-ramps, P2P, seed backup, tokenised real estate), and bill pay there has no row confirmed available, so it shows the published order marked as such; country pages list 23 fewer rows (24,357 to 24,334). The grounding test now matches full country names in any case, which shows seven earlier exclusions were quoted all along: the named debt of unquoted exclusions falls from 40 to 33 pairs.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt decentralised_id:billions_network:2026.10.18:f265808df1ee
Are you Billions Network? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.