#nostr NIP-01 fixes all this complexity and hierarchy described below. From a recent mailing list discussion on the state of verifiable credentials and trust registries…

…
Our condensed view:

European Union’s List of Trusted Lists model places the European Commission to the top of all trust, hindering global adoption and putting too much emphasis on member states as intermediaries of trust; the trust is considered quite binary; the current implementation might have issues with scaling
EBSI platform is not generally available for anyone to simply adopt and use
ToIP’s Trust Registry Query Protocol is feature-wise a good proposal for our requirements, but quite young and still looking for adoption and momentum
OpenID Federation is a spec that’s available today (even though it is still in a draft); it's a protocol anyone can implement, no need to rely on any organization, technology, or platform (Ayra, EBSI, EU Commission, Findynet, GLEIF, Sovrin, …)
using verifiable credentials is kind of attractive but there is no clear, widespread spec on how all issuers and the authorities supervising/accrediting those issuers should make the credentials available and how to query them
using traditional PKI (X.509 certificate chains with certificate authorities and revocation lists) is a well-established pattern, but issuing and managing certificates may not be something that all trust anchors and authorities in trust ecosystems are willing to do; the specifications for using certificates in digital credential ecosystems (ISO mDL, OpenID HAIP) seem to be written for a quite limited context, and yet another spec would need to be authored for wider use
W3C Verified Issuer/Verifier data model and DNS-based approaches are partial solutions and haven’t gained much traction