# Advantages of having ID verification at a network level

Grasping the difference between user verification conducted at the **application level** versus the comprehensive, **network-level** approach adopted by Haven1 is key to appreciating the robust value offered by hPassport.

The table below contrasts these approaches, highlighting the innovative approach adopted by Haven1.

<table><thead><tr><th width="139">Feature</th><th>Application/Protocol Level</th><th>Haven1 Network Level</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Integration Complexity</td><td><ul><li>Requires bespoke code</li><li>More challenging to change or update.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Simple universal SDK.</li><li>More flexibility in updating or changing the KYC process.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Universality of Standards</td><td><ul><li>Multiple standards can co-exist, leading to fragmentation.</li><li>Different applications will have different levels of KYC/KYB scrutiny.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>One standard for the entire network.</li><li>Ensures uniformity.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>User Experience</td><td><ul><li>Tedious: Users will need to undergo KYC processes for multiple applications separately.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Smooth: Once verified, users can interact with any application on the chain without re-verification.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Protection from Exploits</td><td><ul><li>Protection varies by application.</li><li>Inconsistencies in defense mechanisms across apps.</li><li>Fragmentation in design enhances surface attack area</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Centralized control offers a unified defense mechanism, but a flaw affects the entire network.</li><li>Rapid response possible for widespread issues.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Adoption Barriers</td><td><ul><li>Allows for rapid growth as applications can choose to have laxer or stricter KYC norms.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Establishes a foundational trust layer by requiring upfront verification, which streamlines future interactions and enhances network security for all users.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Operational Costs</td><td><ul><li>Costs are absorbed by individual applications</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Cost absorbed by network</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Audit and Oversight</td><td><ul><li>Requires overseeing numerous applications individually, which could be resource-intensive.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Single oversight is more straightforward.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Privacy Concerns</td><td><ul><li>Decentralized KYC approaches may offer varied privacy benefits but also introduce potential risks for data breaches across multiple points.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Unifies user data within a secure, unified framework, using advanced encryption to protect privacy and minimize exposure.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Soulbond Tokens Security</td><td><ul><li>Tailored security per application</li><li>Risks will be localized to specific applications, but inconsistencies in security measures across different applications can exist.</li><li>No recourse mechanic in the event of failure application failure</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Standardized security ensures consistent protection.</li><li>Consistent level of protection against theft, duplication, or unauthorized transfers.</li><li>Network level recourse mechanic provides a failover solution</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>