Provider at a glance
- Category
- Proof of Personhood
- Official website
- billions.network
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 52 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Billions Network
Passport and face verification credentials
Proof of Personhood
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 8 proof of personhood in the published ranking
52
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
- Measured cost to farm an identity5/10 here; Humanity Protocol scores 6
- Uniqueness checkable without the issuer3/10 here; Human Passport scores 7
- Biometric data collected and deletable5/10 here; BrightID scores 10
- Verified population you can count2/10 here; Human Passport scores 4
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best proof-of-personhood system 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 September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Billions Network
Compare all 4- 5Human Passport12 points above · stronger on issuer independent uniqueness check (7 against 3)64
- 6BrightID6 points above · stronger on biometric data and deletion (10 against 5)58
- 8Humanity Protocol6 points below · stronger on cost to farm an identity (6 against 5)46
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 proof-of-personhood systemNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Billions Network ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (12.4 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
325+5.126.59#6/8Loading evidence…
263+2.507.510#6/8Loading evidence…
225+3.528.010#6/8Loading evidence…
202+1.284.08#7/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−6behind BrightID, #6
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 50–54 and stays #7
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.
Measured cost to farm an identity 5 → 8 on its ladder · passes BrightID+358#7 → #6
Uniqueness checkable without the issuer 3 → 7 on its ladder · passes BrightID+459#7 → #6
Biometric data collected and deletable 5 → 10 on its ladder · passes BrightID+559#7 → #6
Verified population you can count 2 → 7 on its ladder · passes BrightID+559#7 → #6
Measured cost to farm an identity 5 → 1 on its ladder · Humanity Protocol passes it−444#7 → #8
Biometric data collected and deletable 5 → 0 on its ladder · Humanity Protocol passes it−546#7 → #8
Smallest climb: measured cost to farm an identity 5 → 8 passes BrightID, #6.
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
- Measured cost to farm an identity — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Uniqueness checkable without the issuer — 3/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Biometric data collected and deletable — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Verified population you can count — 2/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- Developer docs now exist at docs.billions.network and describe an on-chain ZK verifier on Billions' own chain (chainId 45056), but the buyer still trusts the vendor for the uniqueness verdict: on 2026-09-28 the IdentityVerifier and the State contract were both owned by one externally owned account that can upgrade either proxy, proofs reach the chain only through Billions' relay, the verifier's address is not in the docs (it was read from the config of Billions' attestations explorer), and the documented integration path queries the Billions attestations API. The privacy policy (Version 2.1.0) says a third-party provider runs the one-to-N uniqueness comparison and that idOS Association holds the face template for up to five years.
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#7 / 89.3 of 30 · best 20.3
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
- Measured cost to farm an identity#6 / 8
- Uniqueness checkable without the issuer#6 / 8
- Biometric data collected and deletable#6 / 8
- Verified population you can count#7 / 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.
BrightID#6 of 8 · score 58 · 6.0 points ahead
Billions Network leads on
- Measured cost to farm an identity5 vs 4
- Uniqueness checkable without the issuer3 vs 2
BrightID leads on
- Biometric data collected and deletable10 vs 5
- Verified population you can count4 vs 2
Largest single reason BrightID is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: BrightID has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Humanity Protocol#8 of 8 · score 46 · 6.0 points behind
Billions Network leads on
- Uniqueness checkable without the issuer3 vs 1
- Biometric data collected and deletable5 vs 2
- Verified population you can count2 vs 1
Humanity Protocol leads on
- Measured cost to farm an identity6 vs 5
Largest single reason Billions Network is ahead: published criteria (+6.5 display points).Scenario cost: Humanity Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Human Passport#5 of 8 · score 64 · 12.0 points ahead
Billions Network leads on
- Measured cost to farm an identity5 vs 4
Human Passport leads on
- Uniqueness checkable without the issuer7 vs 3
- Biometric data collected and deletable8 vs 5
- Verified population you can count4 vs 2
Largest single reason Human Passport is ahead: published criteria (+11.2 display points).Scenario cost: Human Passport has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 52 · gap 29.0Why Idena 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 29.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisIdenaGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight9.320.3−28.6, 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 criterionThisIdenaPoints
Measured cost to farm an identity · w3258−3.07, worse
Uniqueness checkable without the issuer · w2638−4.16, worse
Biometric data collected and deletable · w22510−3.52, worse
Verified population you can count · w2028−3.84, worse
Net5281−29.0
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 28 September 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 medianNot priced0 of 8 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
8 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 28 September 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.RobustnessHoldsrank #7 across every one-point re-run
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 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Measured cost to farm an identitystrength 5 · weight 32Report an error—28 September 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.Uniqueness checkable without the issuerstrength 3 · weight 26Report an error—28 September 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 data collected and deletablestrength 5 · weight 22Report an error—28 September 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.Verified population you can countstrength 2 · weight 20Report an error—28 September 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
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Measured cost to farm an identity · 32% (Billions Network 5/10)Scored by Uniqueness checkable without the issuer · 26% (Billions Network 3/10)Scored by Biometric data collected and deletable · 22% (Billions Network 5/10)Scored by Verified population you can count · 20% (Billions Network 2/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No price is published any more. The FAQ that carried the August tier statements (free Basic and Verified tiers, a paid Premium tier bought with "Premium vouchers") no longer exists: billions.network/faq returns HTTP 307 to the home page on 28 September 2026, although the footer still links it. The redesigned home page (billions.network, HTTP 200, fetched 28 September 2026) carries no tier, price or voucher statement and asks visitors to "Join the waitlist"; /wallet is marked "Coming soon" and /merchants states no fee. The new developer docs at docs.billions.network (HTTP 200) publish no Billions fee either — the x402 Human Proof server reference shows example route prices that the integrating API provider sets for its own customers, not a Billions charge. Nothing on these pages states what a buyer pays Billions per verification.Billions Network — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDBillions Network — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Billions Network
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 52, #7 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
2026.10.6A 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.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt proof_of_personhood:billions_network-personhood:2026.10.18:3e0d9add6c51
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.