Un Transparency Protocol Vs W3c Verifiable Credentials

UN/CEFACT’s UN Transparency Protocol targets version 1.0 by 1 September 2026, defining a Digital Product Passport issued by the shipper — built on the same W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model 2.0 that protocol/SPEC.md §2 already targets, not a competing wire format.

Why AuthiChain

• UNTP’s passport is a profile — a defined set of required fields and linked credential types — layered on VC Data Model 2.0, the same base specification this protocol already implements
• A UNTP passport links out to separate conformity and traceability-event credentials rather than embedding everything in one document; a signed AuthiChain record can serve as one of those linked credentials without a format conversion
• UNTP is a UN specification, not EU law — adopting it does not by itself satisfy ESPR, where each category’s delegated act remains the binding requirement

How it works

Issue a unique identifier per unit, anchor its record on-chain for tamper-evidence, and let anyone verify it with a single scan. Plans start at $49/mo.

FAQ

Does UNTP replace the EU Digital Product Passport requirement?

No — UNTP is a UN/CEFACT technical specification. It aims for alignment with ESPR, but a product still has to satisfy the delegated act for its own category regardless of which passport format sits underneath.

Is AuthiChain compatible with UNTP?

The building blocks match — both use W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model 2.0 and cryptographic signing. A formal conformance claim waits on UNTP 1.0 finalizing, targeted for 1 September 2026, and on its specific field and credential-linking requirements.