We sit alongside cheqd and Indy — not against them.
An honest, side-by-side read of the AnonCreds VDR landscape. We’re generous to the alternatives because most of them are perfectly good for what they do.
Why you might pick which
Same idea, different chain.
Both treat the chain as a tamper-evident store of AnonCreds objects. Kanon adds org-lifecycle governance and an EVM-native revocation primitive that avoids accumulator math. cheqd uses CKS accumulators just like classic Indy.
Permissioned chain, AnonCreds-native — but more rigid.
Indy's trustee/steward governance is bespoke; Kanon uses standard EVM RBAC + timelock you can audit with OpenZeppelin-shaped tooling. Indy revocation pins you to the CKS-accumulator + tails-file model.
Key-centric vs organization-centric.
did:ethr binds DIDs to addresses — there is no concept of an issuing organization with members and governance. Kanon has that as a first-class on-chain object. For pseudonymous individuals, did:ethr is great; for regulated issuance, you need org-level state.