JWTs purposely contain information in plain text (unencrypted and not stored in a database), however it is in base64 so you don't need to worry about url encodi

JWTs purposely contain information in plain text (unencrypted and not stored in a database), however it is in base64 so you don't need to worry about url encoding issues and so it looks like a token. You could add a prefix to a jwt. That would make it a token that contains a jwt. I don't think the tiny prefix is what they want to obscure. So it wouldn't go against the design of JWT to add one. I would do it. I don't see any issues with it. It would be something like: BA_<base64>.<base64>.base64 If you wanted to be able to double click to copy and paste, which I don't think is a huge usability improvement, you could replace the . with _, and I think a lot of devs would be able to figure out that it's a representation of a JWT.