Will a Solidus Credential Work Inside an EU Digital Identity Wallet?

The honest answer has two halves and most pages only print one. The certification half is not done and we will not pretend otherwise. The engineering half is largely done, on purpose, years before it pays off.

Why the European framework is the centre of this, not an obstacle

A self-issued identifier is worth nothing until a relying party trusts the issuer. That is the hard problem in this field, and it is social and regulatory rather than technical, no amount of cryptography manufactures trust in an issuer.

eIDAS 2.0 manufactures exactly that, for more than 450 million people, on a December 2026 deadline. It is the largest forcing function this category has ever had.

So our position is not that we are an alternative to it. It is that a framework this size needs a multi-vendor ecosystem rather than a single-vendor one, and the standards work that lets an independent implementation participate is what we have been building. We want this to scale, and we want more than one company able to serve it.

What is roadmap, stated as roadmap

Using our own sanctioned wording, because it has both halves in it:

ARF alignment is a roadmap conformance statement, a Q4 2026 target, not a held certification.
The eIDAS qualified-trust-service path is a 2027 roadmap item, and the route is partner first, then own.
ISO mDoc issuance is on the roadmap and is not built. Our published SDK contains zero files referencing CBOR or COSE, the encodings that format needs. So we implement one of the two accepted formats today, and the second is planned rather than partial.
The issuance and presentation protocols are not implemented in this product, zero files, measured with a control. They live on another surface and would need to come here.

None of those are things we hold. All of them are things we are walking toward, in a documented order.

What we do not hold, and will not imply

No certification of any kind. No eIDAS qualified trust service provider status. No Member State recognition. No conformity assessment. No interoperability test result in either direction: we have not run one, so we cannot claim a pass and we are not implying a fail.

These are the gates between the engineering and the outcome, and they are the expensive part. Certification takes years, it is a barrier to everyone including us, and being early to walk it is the actual advantage on offer, not a claim of having finished.

The distinction that keeps this honest

"Built on the standards the framework uses" and "recognised under the framework" are different claims. The first is engineering and we can demonstrate it. The second is law, and nobody grants it to themselves.

Some of our own internal documents state the first, which is defensible. Some state the second, which is not. The error is the conflation, and it is worth naming because it is easy to make: a sentence that begins with a true statement about formats and ends with an implied statement about recognition reads as one claim, and only half of it is true.

If you see a Solidus document, deck or brief claiming EU alignment or qualified status as something we hold today, that claim is not accurate. It is the conflation above, and this page is the correction. The accurate version is that we build on the same standards, that alignment is a stated Q4 2026 conformance target, and that qualified status is a 2027 path.

What a researcher should ask anyone in this category

Including us, hardest:

Held certification, or roadmap? Ours: roadmap, with dates and a partner-then-own route.
Which of the two credential formats do you implement? Ours: one today, the second planned.
Have you run a published interoperability test? We have not, so no pass is claimed and no fail is implied.
Qualified status, or a path to it? A path.

A vendor answering any of these with "we use the same standards" has answered question 1 with the answer to a different question. That is the trap this page exists to avoid, in both directions.

What has to happen, in order

Implement the second credential format. Roadmap, not built.
Bring the issuance and presentation protocols into this product, rather than pointing at another surface.
Run a published interoperability test, with the result public whichever way it goes.
Conformity assessment, then the qualified path, partner first, then own.

The order is not optional, and step 4 is not ours to grant ourselves.