vs OAuth 2.0

getai.id vs OAuth 2.0.

OAuth authorizes apps. getai.id identifies agents. The two are complementary primitives — getai.id isn't a replacement for OAuth, it's the layer OAuth was never designed to provide.

OAuth 2.0 was specified in 2012 for browser-based consent flows: a human clicks "Allow," and an access token flows back to a third-party app. It assumes session-scoped, human-in-the-loop authorization with a redirect URI.

Autonomous AI agents break those assumptions. There is no browser, no redirect, sometimes no human in the loop at the moment of action. getai.id fills that gap — by binding the agent's on-chain identity to the human who authorized it, so every action attributes upward to a verified principal, even when no human is online.

Side by side

OAuth 2.0 vs UAIIP — session auth vs agent identity

CapabilityOAuth 2.0UAIIP
Identifies the AI agent itself
Identifies the human operator behind the agentPartial
Works without a browser redirect
Survives token rotation with continuous identity
On-chain audit trail of authority
Zero-knowledge proof of verification status
Regulatory attribution (EU AI Act / FATF / MiCA)
Behavioral fingerprint of registered model
Composable with existing bearer-token auth

OAuth 2.0 is fine when

  • Browser-based, human-in-the-loop authorization to a SaaS app.
  • Short-lived sessions where the human is present at consent time.
  • Scope-bounded, app-to-app integrations on a single platform.
  • No regulator is asking who built or operated the system.

You need UAIIP when

  • Your agents act asynchronously, on someone's behalf, without a live consent prompt.
  • You need to attribute every agent action upward to a biometrically-verified human.
  • You need an identity that's portable across platforms — not bound to any single OAuth IdP.
  • You need cryptographic non-repudiation under EU AI Act, FATF, MiCA, or BSA/AML.
  • Behavioral fingerprinting matters because not every counterparty cooperates.

FAQ

Common questions.

Is OAuth deprecated for agents?
No. OAuth remains the right primitive for human-in-the-loop authorization. getai.id layers on top: it identifies the agent and binds it to the human who authorized OAuth in the first place, so verifiers can audit both the consent and the actor.
Can OAuth scopes substitute for getai.id capability vectors?
OAuth scopes describe what an app may access. getai.id capability vectors describe what an agent is authorized to do — including off-platform actions OAuth never sees. They cover different surfaces and compose well together.
Where does the bearer token live in getai.id?
Authentication still flows through whichever protocol you already use (OAuth, mTLS, SAML). getai.id attaches an attestation header (X-UAIIP-Attestation) so the verifier learns identity and authority alongside the bearer token.

Ready for an identity layer that holds up under regulation?