uPort <> PICOPS Comparison

empty cells means information is still yet to be found

Functionality Fit

Functionality	PICOPS	uPort
Digital identity
--- Identity proxy	N	Y
--- Generic attestations (to be used for t&c acceptances)	N	Y
--- Recovery/transfer		Y
KYC
--- ID capture	Y	N (to be added in a few weeks)
--- US citizenship check	Y	N (to be added in a few weeks)
--- China citizenship check		N (to be added in a few weeks)
--- Citizenship check for other sanctioned countries	Y	N (to be added in a few weeks)
--- Not named on a sanction list	Y	N (to be added in a few weeks)
--- Ethereum address not already registered	Y(?)	Y
--- Not registered under a different Ethereum address	Y
--- Expiry Date	N	Y
Wallet	Y	N (to be added in a few months)

Integration	PICOPS	uPort
Hosted Middleware/APIs	Y	N
Contract-level integration	Y
Managed integration of smart contracts to OnFido	Y
SDK	N	Y (JavaScript)
API boilerplate	Y (JavaScript)	N
Front-end boilerplate	Y (JavaScript)	N

Consideration	PICOPS	uPort
Release phase	Production	Development
User controlled mobile app	N	Y
License	MIT	Apache v2
Per user certification request	0.024ETH

Both option seem to have very similar implementation complexity on the token launch team side, but uPort is more feature rich and library/SDK rich
"Key stakeholders are identified and notified in the case of a grave security issue that has been found 'in the wild'"
- Not sure if this is regarding users of the system like us or registrants, but should try to get on this list if we plan to use it
"Any major user of PICOPS, determined as a user that has demonstrably referred more than 1000 certification requests, is entitled to commision, at their own expense, an independent security audit"
- This is cool!