How we evaluate
An identity approach for AI agents is judged on how well a counterparty can trust the agent and what that identity connects to. The criteria that matter:
- Verifiability. Can a counterparty check the identity and confirm something real about the agent, like who controls it?
- Payment linkage. Is the identity tied to the agent's wallet, so trust and transaction live in one place?
- Standards and portability. Is it based on open standards and portable across platforms, or proprietary?
- Readiness. Is it ready-made with verification built in, or something you assemble?
- Delegation trail. Does it show who owns or stands behind the agent, not just that it exists?
- Fit to your trust need. Does it match whether your agents transact with strangers or operate internally?
No approach leads on every axis, so start by asking who needs to trust the agent.
Who needs to trust the agent?
Before comparing approaches, ask who needs to trust your agent. If your agents only operate inside your own system, calling your own services, identity matters less, and a key or platform-native identity may suffice. If your agents transact with parties they do not know, other agents, merchants, services, then verifiable identity becomes important, because the counterparty needs a way to decide whether to trust and accept payment from an agent it has never met.
That question sets the bar. Internal-only agents need an identifier; agents in open commerce need a verifiable, ideally payment-linked identity. Most of the disagreement about the best agent identity approach dissolves once you fix who the audience for that identity is, so decide it first and let it guide the rest.
It also tends to escalate over time. An agent that starts internal often grows into talking to outside services or other agents, and at that point a bare key or address stops being enough. So if you expect the agent's world to widen, it is worth choosing a verifiable approach early rather than retrofitting identity once strangers are already in the loop.
The five realistic options
In 2026 the realistic agent identity approaches are Blockchain0x verifiable profiles, W3C DIDs, OAuth and API keys, platform-native identity, and on-chain identity. They differ on verifiability, portability, and whether identity ties to payment.
Option 1: Blockchain0x verifiable profiles
Blockchain0x gives each agent a verifiable public profile with badges for verified email, GitHub, and domain ownership, the domain proven via a DNS TXT record, all managed in the dashboard. The profile has a public URL a counterparty can check, and it is linked to the agent's wallet, so identity and payment sit together.
It fits best when your agents transact with parties that need to verify them, and you want identity ready-made and connected to the payment flow. It is a managed platform identity rather than a portable open standard, so if standards-based portability is your priority, weight that. For agent-to-agent and agent-to-merchant commerce, the payment-linked verifiable profile is the trust layer, and the mechanics are in how-to-verify-ai-agent-identity.
Option 2: W3C DIDs
W3C decentralized identifiers and verifiable credentials are a standards-based identity you control, portable across systems and not tied to one platform. Their strength is open standards, portability, and self-sovereignty.
They fit best when standards compliance and portability are core requirements and you are willing to assemble more yourself, including issuance, verification, and the surrounding tooling. They are not payment-linked out of the box, so connecting identity to a wallet and a payment flow is work you do. Choose DIDs when an open, portable standard matters more than a ready-made payment-linked profile, and you have the capacity to build around them.
Option 3: OAuth and API keys
The traditional approach identifies an agent by an OAuth token or API key, so the agent acts under a credential within a system. Its strength is familiarity and simplicity: most developers already know how to issue and check keys.
It fits best for identifying an agent within your own system or to services that issued it a key, where the relationship is known. It does not give a counterparty a way to verify an unknown agent, since a key is a secret shared with one party, not a public verifiable identity. Choose it for internal or known-party identification, and reach for verifiable identity when strangers must trust the agent.
Option 4: Platform-native identity
Some agent frameworks and model providers offer their own agent identity within their platform. Its strength is integration: identity comes with the platform you already use, with no extra setup.
It fits best when your agents live entirely within one platform's ecosystem and the parties they deal with are in the same ecosystem. The limitation is portability and reach: a platform-native identity may mean little to a counterparty outside that platform, and it ties your identity to one vendor. Choose it when you are committed to a platform and its ecosystem is where your agents transact, and weight portability if they reach beyond it.
Option 5: On-chain identity
On-chain identity uses the agent's wallet address as its identifier, optionally with a human-readable name like ENS. Its strength is that it is inherent to the wallet, needs no separate system, and is portable across anything that reads the chain.
It fits best as a minimal, portable identifier, especially where the wallet is already the agent's anchor. The limitation is that an address proves control of a key, not who stands behind the agent or whether it is trustworthy, so it is an identifier rather than a verified identity. Choose it when a portable on-chain handle is enough, and pair it with verification when counterparties need to know more than the address.
Summary comparison
| Approach | Verifiable by strangers | Payment-linked | Portable / standard | Best fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blockchain0x profiles | Yes (badges) | Yes | Managed platform | Agent commerce needing trust |
| W3C DIDs | Yes | Not by default | Yes (standard) | Portable, standards-based identity |
| OAuth / API keys | No | No | Within a system | Internal or known-party identity |
| Platform-native | Within platform | Varies | No | Single-ecosystem agents |
| On-chain identity | Partly (control only) | Via the wallet | Yes (on-chain) | Minimal portable identifier |
How to pick
Answer who needs to trust the agent and the approach follows. If your agents transact with strangers and you want identity ready-made and tied to payment, choose Blockchain0x verifiable profiles. If open standards and portability are paramount, choose W3C DIDs and accept the assembly. If your agents only deal with your own system or known parties, OAuth and API keys suffice. If they live wholly in one ecosystem, platform-native identity fits. If a minimal portable handle is enough, on-chain identity works.
For the common case of agents transacting in open commerce, where a counterparty must verify an agent before accepting payment, a verifiable profile linked to the wallet is the trust layer that makes the transaction safe, and it is ready-made rather than assembled. To set it up, see how-to-verify-ai-agent-identity, and for the wallet it links to, see best-wallet-for-ai-agents. Pricing is on the pricing page.