Verify what a new participant can do.
FromClaimed capability→ToVerifiable capability
Open entry is a network’s strength: anyone with the capability can join. Finance still has to ask how it knows. This shift asks whether capability can be made verifiable, so that a newcomer with no credit history can still show what they can do.
No credit history, plenty of proof
Meera has no long credit history illustrative. She has a product-development programme she completed, a supervised internship with an established food brand, a commercial simulation in which she priced, ordered and sold through a mock season, and two small pilot batches. Arjun is newer still: his first year as a stockist, after a decade in his family’s distribution business.
None of it sits in a credit report. All of it says something about what they can do.
From what they claim to what they’ve shown
“I can do this.”
“Here is what I have done, and who confirms it.”
| Today | On an open network |
|---|---|
| Financial position | Capability in a specific role |
| Credentials and vintage | Behaviour under real constraints |
| Formal history | A verified progression of practice |
A first-time participant isn’t an unknown. Their proof just hasn’t been gathered yet.
How it would work
Capability credentials. Trusted issuers, such as training providers, host businesses, simulation platforms and assessors, issue verifiable credentials for capability in a role. The participant holds them and presents them to any provider on the network, by consent.
The questions move from the credential toward behaviour. What did they decide? Under what conditions, and with what resources? What happened, and how did they respond? The progression runs from training to an internship, a simulation and an assessment, and then to real batches.
How a credential travels with a person is the subject of Human Capital. This shift asks what one is worth to a provider of capital.
Go deeper
What already exists
Verifiable credentials already have a standard. The W3C’s Verifiable Credentials Data Model 2.0 became a Recommendation on 15 May 2025, and describes issuers who make claims, holders who keep them and verifiers who check them[1]. Early money for new businesses already flows through incubators: the Startup India Seed Fund Scheme, launched in 2021, funds proof of concept, prototype development and product trials, then market entry and commercialisation[2]. And lenders already look beyond credit reports. Account Aggregator data enabled an estimated ₹3.82 lakh crore of loans in FY26[3].
Scope. We found no study showing that capability credentials predict first-cycle performance in trade, and we haven’t checked whether the Seed Fund Scheme is currently open. It was approved for four years from 2021–22[2].
Consent and fairness
Credentials about a person are personal data, shared with consent and removable[4]. A credential should say what it verifies and who issued it. A missing credential means “not yet evidenced”, never “unfit”.
Getting it right
Make credentials earned and checkable. The issuer’s standing matters as much as the credential.
Keep the ladder short: training, an internship, a simulation, an assessment, then real batches.
Don’t let credentials become a toll. A participant without one can still enter through a small, capped first cycle.
Who it helps. Meera and Arjun can show what they can do before they have a record. Providers get something firmer than a claim. Issuers, from training providers to host brands, see their people recognised.
What could go wrong
- Credentials that don’t predict.A certificate may say little about running a real batch, so the pilot compares holders with non-holders.
- Issuers who inflate.If anyone can issue, credentials lose their meaning, so issuers are named and their standing is visible.
- A new barrier.Credentials could become another gate, so participants without them can still enter through small, capped first cycles.
- Personal data held too long.Credentials are shared by consent and expire.
How we’d test it
In one corridor, take new participants with and without capability credentials.
- The test
- Credentials against none
- What we would measure
- Compare first-cycle performance for the two groups, controlling for what else is known about them. Keep only the credentials that make performance more predictable.
- What would end the idea
- First-cycle performance of credential holders is no more predictable than that of others, once other information is accounted for.
Sources
- [1]World Wide Web Consortium, Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0 (W3C Recommendation, 15 May 2025)Checked; the standard’s own text
- [2]Press Information Bureau, 656 Startups Supported by Approved Incubators under Startup India Seed Fund Scheme (SISFS) (figures as of 30 November 2022)Checked; a government press release
- [3]IANS, India’s Account Aggregator ecosystem drives Rs 3.82 lakh crore loans in FY26 (27 August 2026), reporting a Sahamati reportChecked; Sahamati’s own estimates, as reported by a news agency
- [4]PRS Legislative Research, The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023Checked; a summary of the Bill as passed by Parliament in August 2023
Spotted a source we missed or a rule we misread? Tell us what we got wrong.
Capability is where the evidence begins. What happens when Meera actually commits capital?