Checklist for Running Workshops on Decentralized Identity to Reduce Gmail Dependency

Cut the Gmail leash: a practical workshop checklist to move engineers from email-based identity to DIDs

Centralized email recovery and identity workflows are a single point of failure for product security, privacy, and resilience. In 2026, with large provider changes (see Google’s January 2026 Gmail updates) and increasing enterprise scrutiny of data-minimizing architectures, engineering teams must learn how to implement decentralized identity (DID) patterns that replace or augment Gmail-based sign-in and recovery. This article is a hands-on curriculum and checklist you can run as an internal developer workshop to accelerate adoption, reduce email dependency, and ship production-safe DID flows.

Why run a DID workshop now? (Executive hook)

Product teams are under pressure to improve security posture, reduce reliance on third-party platform attachments, and lower support costs from account recovery. A focused internal workshop accomplishes three things quickly:

• Build practical competence: developers and infra teams gain working knowledge, not theory.
• De-risk migration: validate recovery, key-rotation, and UX trade-offs on staging before product rollout.
• Create a repeatable playbook: a documented path for product teams to adopt DID-native auth and recovery.

High-level workshop outcomes (what success looks like)

• Deliverable: a small DID Auth prototype integrated with your existing auth gateway (OIDC / OAuth) and a recovery flow that avoids email-based reset.
• Policy: an infra design document mapping key custody options (HSM, MPC, custodial SaaS) to your threat model.
• Metrics: measurable reduction in email recovery tickets, percentage of users adopting DID-based login in beta, and time-to-recovery benchmarks.

Audience and prerequisites

Target: senior backend developers, security engineers, DevOps/infra, and product engineers involved in auth or identity flows.

• Prerequisites: familiarity with OIDC, JWT, and basic cryptography (keypairs and signatures).
• Hardware/Software: laptops, Git, Docker, node or Python runtimes, a test domain for did:web (optional), and accounts for any third-party DID tooling you choose (Aries/ACA-Py, DidKit, Ceramic nodes, etc.).

Workshop format and timing (1–2 days)

Recommended structure: two half-days or one full day with follow-up labs. Keep groups small (6–12 engineers) and mix roles to cover product and infra perspectives.

1. Session 0 (30–45 min): Context, threats, and goals—why reduce email dependency in 2026.
2. Session 1 (90–120 min): Core DID concepts and hands-on lab #1.
3. Lunch break / lightning talks from security researchers or infra providers (30 min).
4. Session 2 (120–180 min): Advanced recovery patterns—social recovery, threshold keys, custody models, hands-on lab #2.
5. Session 3 (60–90 min): Integration and migration plan—mapping to your product and roadmap.
6. Closing (30 min): Metrics, next steps, and ownership assignment.

Curriculum and practical exercises

Module A — DID fundamentals (30–45 min lecture + 30 min micro-lab)

Objectives: Understand DID documents, verification methods, and common DID methods (did:key, did:web, did:ethr, did:ion). Clarify what a DID does—and what it does not (it’s not a user profile store).

• Explain DID document anatomy: verificationMethods, service endpoints, and authentication entries.
• Show how a DID resolves to cryptographic keys and service endpoints—demonstrate did:key and did:web locally.

Micro-lab: generate a did:key locally using a CLI tool (DidKit or similar). Verify signatures with the resolved key.

Module B — DID Auth prototype (90–120 min)

Objectives: Replace an email+password or email-based recovery flow with DID Authentication (DID Auth / SIOP). Build a small prototype that lets a browser wallet authenticate to a test API.

1. Set up a minimal API that accepts DID-based JWTs / VP tokens. Use OIDC bridging if necessary.
2. Install a local wallet (mobile or browser extension like a DID wallet) or use a software wallet library (Aries Framework JS or DidKit) to create a DID and sign an authentication challenge.
3. Implement challenge/response: server issues a challenge -> client signs with DID private key -> server verifies signature using DID document.
4. Return a session token or mint a short-lived JWT that maps DID -> internal user record.

Deliverable: working demo where signing in uses a DID and there is no reliance on an email inbox.

Module C — Recovery strategies (120–180 min)

Objectives: Design and implement resilient, user-friendly recovery flows that replace email resets. Evaluate trade-offs across social recovery, hardware keys, HSM-backed custodial recovery, and MPC/TSS.

• Social recovery: implement a guardian-based flow. Hands-on: configure a prototype that lets a user appoint 3 guardians; a threshold of 2 guardians can rotate keys.
• Hardware/HSM backup: show signing with a hardware wallet (YubiKey/ledger) for key storage and offline backup.
• Threshold and MPC: demonstrate a simple 2-of-3 threshold split locally using an open-source TSS lib or simulate with encrypted shares in the workshop environment.
• Custodial SaaS: review options for managed key custody (custodial wallets and KMS with DID support) and run a short evaluation matrix.

Micro-lab: implement a guardian recovery flow in the prototype and validate restoration time and audit trails.

Module D — Integration and UX (60–90 min)

Objectives: Map DID flows into real-world product UX and policy. Run an exercise to convert one critical email-dependent flow (account creation or password reset) into a DID-first flow.

1. Prioritize which user journeys to convert first (admins, high-value users, internal tooling).
2. Define transitional flows (email+did hybrid) and a soft opt-in strategy for early adopters.
3. Design minimal UI: onboarding to create/restore DID, guardian invite flows, key backup prompts.

Deliverable: a conversion plan for a product endpoint and a mocked UI prototype for developer handoff.

Module E — Threat modeling, compliance, and metrics (60 min)

Objectives: Build threat models (account takeover, key exfiltration, stolen device), map mitigation controls, and define metrics for adoption and risk.

• Threat model templates for DID-based auth vs email password resets.
• Controls: key rotation, revocation lists (DID service considerations), HSM/MPC, device attestation.
• Compliance notes: privacy, data minimization, GDPR—DIDs can reduce PII stored centrally but require clear data-controller mapping for VCs and logs.

Sample checklist — pre-workshop, in-workshop, post-workshop

Pre-workshop (2 weeks before)

• Identify product owners and select 1–2 pilot user journeys.
• Reserve infrastructure: staging domain, short-lived certs for did:web, and sandbox keys.
• Install required CLI/tools and distribute a short primer for attendees.

During workshop

• Run the DID Auth prototype. Confirm signature verification against DID resolution.
• Implement at least one non-email recovery flow (social recovery or hardware backup).
• Run a simulated attack (lost device) and test recovery time and audit logs.
• Collect participant feedback and blocker notes in a shared doc.

Post-workshop (2–6 weeks)

• Ship the prototype to a private beta and measure key metrics (support tickets, conversion, time-to-recovery).
• Hold a retrospective. Assign owners for production hardening (key management, monitoring, revocation handling).
• Create an adoption playbook for product teams with templates, code snippets, and threat model checklists.

Advanced topics and operational concerns

Teams must evaluate practical operational constraints early—these topics are usually raised in workshops and should be converted into actionable decisions.

• Key rotation and DID lifecycle: define rotation schedules, how to publish key updates in DID documents, and how your system resolves older DIDs or revoked verificationMethods.
• Revocation and discovery: design service endpoints or use revocation registries for credentials if required by your product.
• Interoperability: choose DID methods and wallet compatibility that align with your users (mobile-first vs developer-only). did:web is easy for enterprise-controlled domains; did:key is great for ephemeral keys.
• Observability: instrument DID auth flows with metrics, alerts for key rotation failures, and audit logs that respect user privacy.

Community insights — what practitioners are saying (2025–2026)

"We ran a one-day DID sprint and discovered the hardest problem wasn't signatures, it was the UX around recovery and guardian onboarding." — Senior DevOps Engineer, fintech (workshop participant)

"Threshold keying and MPC are production-ready for many use cases, but your legal and incident response playbooks must adapt to shared-key models." — Security researcher (anonymous)

Developer and infra providers reported in late 2025 that teams who pilot DID + social recovery consistently reduced support tickets tied to inbox-based resets by 30–60% in early betas. In early 2026, platform provider changes (for example, Gmail policy and UX updates) accelerated exec interest in reducing platform lock-in, making DID workshops a timely investment.

Practical integration patterns

Use these patterns to map your prototype to production:

• Hybrid fallback: accept DID auth by default, but keep email as a secondary recovery channel for a limited transition period. Enforce stronger verification for email fallback (proof-of-possession + device attestations).
• Progressive onboarding: onboard users with a simple did:key, then encourage migration to a durable did:web or custodial DID for long-term accounts.
• Privileged flows: require HSM-backed or enterprise-controlled DIDs for admin roles and sensitive operations.

Measuring adoption and risk

Recommended KPIs to track post-workshop:

• Percentage of active beta users authenticating with DID vs email.
• Number of support tickets for account recovery per 1,000 users.
• Mean time to recover (MTTR) for lost keys under each recovery model.
• Incidents related to key compromise and whether recovery worked as intended.

Sample action plan for the next 90 days

1. Week 1–2: Run the workshop and complete the DID auth prototype.
2. Week 3–4: Harden recovery flows, run threat modeling and compliance review.
3. Week 5–8: Launch a private beta for 1–5% of users; instrument metrics.
4. Week 9–12: Iterate UX and key management, draft production runbook, and train SRE/support teams.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

• Treating DID as a drop-in replacement for email: DID changes the trust model—rethink identity-to-account mappings and recovery flows.
• Choosing the wrong DID method for your use case: did:key is great for prototypes; did:web or HSM-backed methods usually fit enterprise needs better.
• Neglecting observability and incident playbooks: run recovery drills similar to your disaster recovery tests.
• Underestimating UX friction: invest the time in onboarding flows and clear, minimal language for non-technical users.

Resource kit for workshop facilitators

• Starter repos: minimal DID Auth server and client (Node/Python) with challenge/response.
• Tooling: DidKit, Aries Framework JS, ACA-Py sandbox, open-source MPC/TSS libs for demos.
• Templates: threat model, runbook, recovery UX copy, and acceptance tests for recovery flows.
• Community: invite a security researcher or an infra provider for a 30-minute Q&A session to share real-world trade-offs.

Closing thoughts — the practical payoff in 2026

Provider shifts in early 2026 renewed enterprise focus on reducing single-provider dependencies. Moving away from Gmail-based recovery is not just a privacy or resilience win—it’s a cost and security optimization. A short, focused workshop will give your engineers the practical skills to design, prototype, and operationalize DID-first identity models with measurable improvements in support load and account security.

Call to action

Run the workshop within the next 60 days: pick a pilot journey, schedule two half-days, and use the checklist above. If you want a starter repo, sample runbook, or a 90-minute remote guest session with a security researcher to amplify your workshop, reach out to our team to book a tailored session for your organization.

Related Reading

• Career Path: From DevOps to QuantumOps — Skills to Run Hybrid AI/Quantum Systems
• Is the ‘Very Chinese Time’ Meme Problematic? Voices From Creators and Critics
• AI Trainers Are Coming: What OpenAI Docs Tell Us About the Future of Personalized Fitness
• Insider Grants and Underwriter Deals: What to Watch in Small Company Offerings (QXO Case Study)
• Monetizing Live Swims Without Compromising Security: Using Cashtags and New Features Safely