That was meant to be. In effect it is fake. Every web3 implementation has its own challenges, and true to form, by putting it on a blockchain, make it permissionless, you get privacy.

And, it is meant to be a system where you decide what to share with whom and you could create a sovereign identity.

That said, there are some things to think about:

However, each service comes with predetermined rules of engagement. At the moment of connecting, you sign agreement with those rules to which you have no option but either accept or reject. No tech company will move from the position of respecting rights at all.

This is a huge omission. Especially, since such transnational services are perfectly susceptible to UCC-1 308 and some other niceties. It allows for some interesting consumer protection advantages, you will not have by simply agreeing to their rules without reservation.

So, the idea is not bad. The implementations are usually shoddy. Hence, my recommendation to be suspicious before entering into an agreement.

Then there is .gov, on both sides of the Atlantic. Both the Stable Act and the Genius Act attempt to regulate stable coins. And every WEB3 system that relies on that is touched. The same, and this is even worse, goes on in the EU with MICA-rules.

To prevent any claim under these regulations, especially because MICA is older than STABLE + GENIUS, it is visible that companies implement even more stringent rules, and their signal-systems are set so, that practically everything is suspect, and thus there is a block.

Of course, these are not perfectly WEB3 implementations. But if you wanted to, then you cannot use stable coins at all. And as soon as you commit to privacy, central exchanges start delisting an asset. See Monero.

Of course, the solution is not WEB3 per se but something that is built with MONERO in mind, doing the same thing (it is already being built).

So, .gov has played it move. No the anarchic part of IT coders is next to make another move to totally rug pull the .gov system.