[Open Question] Eligibility credential schemas — universal claim topics vs. extensions

[oa-sarvesh]

Context

The identity layer (Whitepaper §6.2) proposes a canonical eligibility attestation schema (claim topics such as KYC-complete, jurisdiction, investor-class, sanctions-clear), a trusted-issuer discovery mechanism, and an isEligible(party, claimTopics) -> bool/proof interface — carrying hashes/references, never PII.

The question

Which claim topics are truly universal across jurisdictions, and which must remain extensions? How are revocation and freshness handled at transfer time?

How to contribute

• Propose a minimal universal claim-topic set and justify each against at least two regulatory regimes (e.g., MiCA/AMLR, BSA/AML).
• Compare revocation/freshness approaches (status lists, short-lived credentials, on-chain revocation registries) for transfer-time verification.
• Map the proposal against existing work: ERC-3643 claim topics / ONCHAINID, W3C VC data model, EAS attestation schemas, eIDAS 2.0.

Reference: Whitepaper §6.2, §4.1 (ERC-3643), Flow C (§8).