Re-verification cost, the half of the arithmetic that favours us, held to the same standard

This is the page where our own pricing draft looks good, which is exactly why it gets the same scepticism as the page where it does not.

What the metric is

Re-verification cost is what a business pays the second, third and Nth time it needs to establish the identity of someone it, or somebody else, has already verified.

It shows up constantly: a periodic refresh cycle, a customer returning after dormancy, a customer opening a second product, a customer arriving at a different business entirely.

The structural difference, which is real

Most incumbents treat a re-verification as a brand-new full check, because that is what their architecture is. The vendor holds the result; the user holds nothing. When the same person needs verifying again, the only available move is to run the whole pipeline again, document capture, liveness, face match, and charge for it again.

None of the named incumbents issues the user a credential they keep and can re-present. That is not a criticism of their engineering; it is a description of a different product shape.

A portable credential changes what the second check is: verifying a signature and an issuer's registry status, rather than re-running a capture pipeline. That is a genuinely cheaper operation, not because we are more efficient at scanning documents, but because we are not scanning one.

Now the same scepticism 070 got

The reuse price is an internal draft. The band we model against comes from our own GTM pricing document. It is not published, not contracted, and has never been charged to anyone.

It conflicts with the numbers we do publish. As of 2026-07-31, our tokenomics page states one price for a returning verified user and Verify's own home page states a different one, and the internal band matches neither. Three figures, no reconciliation. Any one of them quoted as the re-verification price would be wrong, including the cheapest, which is the one we would be tempted to quote.

Reliance is where that is stated in full.

The precondition nobody costs correctly

A cheap re-verification requires a credential to already exist. For a business with an existing book of customers who hold nothing, the first cycle is not cheaper, it is the expensive one, because everyone has to be issued a credential before anyone can re-present one.

That cost is real and it lands on the buyer, and it belongs in any model that claims a saving. See remediation for the same precondition stated from the operations side, and total cost of ownership for what an honest model has to include beyond a per-check fee.

And it still does not discharge the obligation

A cheaper re-check is a cost argument, never a compliance transfer. A business required to perform its own due diligence is not relieved of it by the price of the mechanism, and whether a supervisor accepts third-party verification remains unsettled.

Why there is no percentage saving on this page

A saving is a ratio, and both of its inputs are unsettled: our own price conflicts across three sources, and incumbent pricing is quoted per customer rather than off a rate card. Any percentage we published would be a choice of numerator and denominator dressed as a finding.

We are not publishing one. If a Solidus page shows a cost-reduction percentage stated as achieved rather than modelled, it is wrong.