What's the difference between Proof of Holdings and Auth0?

Auth0 is an identity platform — it answers "who is this person?" using social login, SSO, and user databases. Proof of Holdings answers "does this person control this asset?" without collecting identity. Auth0 manages user accounts and sessions. Proof of Holdings produces portable cryptographic proof tokens. They solve fundamentally different problems, though they can complement each other.

Why would I use Proof of Holdings instead of Auth0?

Use Proof of Holdings when you need to verify control of assets (phone, email, domain, wallet, social accounts) without building a full identity system. Common cases: verifying a business controls a domain, confirming a user controls a wallet address, or getting human approval from someone who isn't in your user database. Auth0 requires the user to have an account in your system. Proof of Holdings verifies anyone controlling an asset.

Can Proof of Holdings replace Auth0?

Not directly — they serve different purposes. Auth0 is for authentication and session management (login, SSO, user databases). Proof of Holdings is for asset control verification and human approvals. However, for many use cases where Auth0 is used just for email/phone verification, Proof of Holdings is simpler and more affordable. You can also use both: Auth0 for login, Proof of Holdings for additional asset verification and HITL approvals.

How does pricing compare?

Auth0 charges per monthly active user (MAU): free up to 25K MAU (B2C), then $35-240+/month. At scale, it's roughly $0.07/MAU. Proof of Holdings charges per proof: €0.0079 on Business plan, with 300 free proofs/month. Key difference: Auth0 charges whether users verify or not (per-MAU). Proof of Holdings charges only when verification happens. For high-volume verification without user accounts, Proof of Holdings is significantly more affordable.

Does Auth0 verify domain or wallet ownership?

No. Auth0 verifies identity through social login, email/phone OTP, and enterprise SSO (SAML, OIDC). It has no domain verification (DNS TXT, HTTP file) or crypto wallet verification (message signing). For these, you'd need separate services. Proof of Holdings handles phone, email, domain, wallet, and social verification from one API.

What about Auth0's HITL for AI agents?

Auth0 launched CIBA (Client-Initiated Backchannel Authentication) for AI agent authorization, currently in Developer Preview. It uses the OIDC standard and produces OAuth2 tokens. Proof of Holdings HITL delivers approval requests via Telegram or WhatsApp (no app required), and produces RS256 proof tokens — portable attestations that any third party can verify offline, not tied to an auth session.

What's the difference between proof tokens and OIDC tokens?

Auth0 OIDC tokens prove that a user authenticated in a specific session. They're tied to the auth flow and expire with the session. Proof of Holdings proof tokens prove that an asset was verified (or a decision was made) at a specific time. They're portable — share them with partners, store for compliance, validate offline. An OIDC token says "this user logged in." A proof token says "this phone number was verified" or "this human approved this action."

Comparison

Proof of Holdings vs Auth0

Auth0 verifies identity — who someone is. Proof of Holdings verifies control — what someone controls. Prove a user owns a phone, email, domain, wallet, or social account without collecting identity documents or building a user database.

The Core Difference

Proof of Holdings

“This person controls this phone number, this email, this domain, and this wallet.”

No identity documents. No user database. No PII. Just cryptographic proof of asset control.

Auth0

“This person is John Smith, logged in via Google, with this email address.”

Full identity platform. User accounts, SSO, session management, social login.

For many use cases, you don't need to know who someone is. You need to know they control specific assets. A SaaS onboarding that verifies domain + admin email proves legitimacy without a passport. A DeFi platform that verifies wallet + social proves reputation without doxxing.

Feature Comparison

Feature	Proof of Holdings	Auth0
Core approach	Verify asset control (what you control)	Verify identity (who you are)
Identity documents required		Optional (social login, enterprise SSO)
Phone verification	Reverse OTP (Telegram, WhatsApp, SMS)	SMS OTP (via Twilio backend)
Email verification	Magic Link, OTP	OTP, Magic Link
Domain verification	DNS TXT, HTTP, Admin Email, Auto-Verify
Wallet verification	8 chains (ETH, SOL, BTC, BNB, COSMOS, TRON, ADA, HBAR)
Social verification	13 platforms (OAuth proof of control)	30+ social login providers (identity)
Proof tokens	RS256 JWT, portable, offline-verifiable	OIDC JWTs (session-bound, auth-flow-tied)
HITL approvals	Telegram/WhatsApp with signed proof tokens	CIBA (Developer Preview, OIDC tokens)
MCP server	131 tools	No (SDK only for LangGraph/CrewAI)
Pricing model	Per-proof (any asset type)	Per-MAU (monthly active user)
User accounts required
SSO / session management
PII collected	None (hashed identifiers only)	Full user profiles

Pricing

Pricing model

Proof of Holdings

Per-proof: €0.0079 (Business). Pay only when verification happens.

Auth0

Per-MAU: $35-240+/mo. Pay for all users, verified or not.

Free tier

Proof of Holdings

300 proofs/month (any asset type)

Auth0

25,000 MAU (B2C) / 500 MAU (B2B)

10,000 verifications/month

Proof of Holdings

€79/mo (Business plan, includes all asset types)

Auth0

$240+/mo (Professional B2C) + Twilio SMS fees for phone

Setup complexity

Proof of Holdings

One API key. One endpoint. No user database.

Auth0

Tenant setup, application config, rules/actions, user database

Proof Tokens vs OIDC Tokens

Proof of Holdings: RS256 Proof Tokens

Proves asset control, not authentication
Portable: share with any third party
Verify offline with public key
Not tied to a session or auth flow
Includes hashed asset identifier (no PII)

Auth0: OIDC ID Tokens

Proves authentication in a session
Tied to the issuing application
Verify via JWKS endpoint
Expires with the session
Contains user profile data (PII)

AI Agent Integration

Both platforms support AI agent workflows, but with different approaches:

Proof of Holdings

131-tool MCP server. Agent creates verification or approval request. Human responds via Telegram/WhatsApp. Signed proof token returned. Works with Claude, LangChain, CrewAI, any MCP framework.

Auth0

CIBA flow (Developer Preview). Agent requests authorization. User receives push/email/SMS notification via Guardian app. OIDC token returned. SDKs for LangGraph and CrewAI.

Key difference: Proof of Holdings HITL works via native messaging (Telegram, WhatsApp) with no app install. Auth0 CIBA requires the Guardian app or custom notification channel setup.

Privacy

Auth0 collects and stores full user profiles: name, email, phone, social account data, login history. This is necessary for an identity platform but creates PII compliance obligations (GDPR, CCPA).

Proof of Holdings stores hashed asset identifiers only. The proof token proves control without revealing the underlying asset to third parties. No user profiles, no login sessions, no PII storage. GDPR-friendly by design.

When to use Auth0

You need a full identity platform with SSO, user database, and session management
You need enterprise features (SAML, LDAP, SCIM, MFA policies)
You want 30+ social login providers out of the box
Your app is login-centric and you need to know who users are

When to use Proof of Holdings

You need to verify asset control without collecting identity documents
You need domain, wallet, or multi-asset verification (not just phone/email)
You want portable cryptographic proofs, not session-bound tokens
You need human-in-the-loop approvals delivered via messaging apps
You want per-verification pricing, not per-user pricing
You value privacy: no user profiles, no PII, just proof of control

Frequently Asked Questions

Ready to try Proof of Holdings?

300 free proofs per month. No credit card required.

Get Started API Reference

Proof vs Twilio Best Verification APIs 2026 Comparison

Proof of Holdings vs Auth0

The Core Difference

Feature Comparison

Pricing

Pricing model

Free tier

10,000 verifications/month

Setup complexity

Proof Tokens vs OIDC Tokens

AI Agent Integration

Privacy

When to use Auth0

When to use Proof of Holdings

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the difference between Proof of Holdings and Auth0?

Why would I use Proof of Holdings instead of Auth0?

Can Proof of Holdings replace Auth0?

How does pricing compare?

Does Auth0 verify domain or wallet ownership?

What about Auth0's HITL for AI agents?

What's the difference between proof tokens and OIDC tokens?

Ready to try Proof of Holdings?

Related