The growth in digital identity wallet development is an exhilarating trend that promises to transform the way we interact with digital services. As we move swiftly towards tangible use cases, it's clear that this technology has the potential to revolutionize identity verification, making it more secure, efficient, and user-friendly. However, the journey towards widespread adoption is not without its hurdles, particularly when it comes to achieving consensus and conformity among different brands of wallets.
One of the most pressing concerns is the lack of uniformity in digital identity wallet solutions. The EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet leads the way in some respects but is hampered by a regulatory-based governance that restricts its potential. Government wallets do not have the freedom of commercial governance, which is based on terms and conditions agreed by the wallet operators and/or in part between the users and the relying parties.
This fragmentation of wallets also means that those various brands are developing their own technical versions of digital wallets, leading to a scattergun approach rather than a cohesive, unified strategy. The absence of clear guidance and leadership is a significant obstacle to the progress of digital identity wallets as a coherent and standardized and interoperable technology.
Leadership is crucial in steering the rationalization of digital identity wallets. Unfortunately, the European Commission has not demonstrated the necessary wherewithal, ability, or willingness to take on this leadership role of the commercial sector. Without strong direction, the digital wallet sector risks losing momentum and potentially failing to reach its full potential. The EUDI Wallet, while a positive step, will become confined to governmental processes and fail to set the pace for future technological advancements.
To address this challenge, Europe must find a way to work collaboratively towards a common goal. This involves fostering diversity among digital wallet solutions while ensuring strong interoperability. Achieving this balance requires a concerted effort from various stakeholders, including the regulators, private sector entities, commercial sectorial representatives and standardization bodies.
Other areas that are clearly missing from the the ecosystem at the moment are:
1. Raising Awareness and Trust: Public trust is vital for the success of digital identity wallets. Stakeholders should invest in awareness campaigns to educate users. In both general and sector specific opportunities, in order to deliver a clear and inspiring vision for the public and private sectors.
2. Providing Clear Governance: Establishing a clear commercial governance framework for digital identity wallets can help in defining roles, responsibilities, and accountability. This framework should facilitate collaboration among stakeholders and ensure the alignment of digital wallet initiatives with broader policy objectives. It is possible to have a core set of rules for all wallets, and supplemental governance for sector specifics, together with opportunities at an even finer transactional level to have varied liabilities and other features.
The financial viability and sustainability of digital identity wallets will also depend significantly on the underlying business models. Several approaches can be considered for user based pricing:
Partnership and Integration Fees: Digital wallet providers can charge businesses, service providers and relying parties for integrating their wallet solutions into their platforms. This can include a one-time integration fee or ongoing partnership fees based on usage.
Subscription-Based Models: Users or organizations pay a regular subscription fee to access and utilize digital wallet services. This model ensures a steady stream of revenue and can be scaled based on the features and number of users. This is not reliant on transaction details and therefor fees can be redistributed to service providers within the ecosystem without anonymity fears.
Transaction Fees: Charging a small fee for each transaction processed through the digital wallet can be an effective revenue stream. This model aligns with usage, meaning more frequent users contribute more, but has a real problem with privacy and anonymity of transactions within the ecosystem
Freemium/Low fee Models: Offering a basic version of the digital wallet for free (or nearly free) while providing premium features for a fee can attract a broad user base. Users can upgrade to the paid version for additional benefits and enhanced functionality including transaction archiving.
Advertising and Data Monetization: While maintaining user privacy and adhering to regulations, digital wallet providers can leverage anonymized data for targeted advertising and partnerships with marketing firms. This can generate significant revenue without compromising user trust, but may be controversial. Strict governance for wallet providers will be needed, but advertising, like with the streamed video market, can be an attractive choice to users.
Government and Institutional Support: Securing funding and support from government entities and institutions interested in promoting digital identity solutions can provide a semi stable financial foundation. Grants, subsidies, and public-private partnerships can play a crucial role in sustaining digital wallet initiatives but should not be relied upon long-term for a real sustainable ecosystem.
The path to a unified, interoperable and effective digital identity wallet ecosystem in Europe is challenging but actually achievable if we are bold enough. By embracing leadership, collaboration, and prioritizing interoperability, we can create a future where digital identity wallets are not only widely adopted but also trusted and relied upon by users across the continent in their daily lives. With the right business models in place, digital wallet providers can ensure their solutions are both innovative and sustainable, paving the way for a secure interconnected digital future.
Comments