Digital identity wallets could reshape online trust and access

At a glance

What this is: This is an analysis of how digital identity wallets, Belgium’s itsme model, and eIDAS 2.0 are changing online trust by shifting identity verification toward reusable, privacy-preserving credentials.

Why it matters: IAM teams need to understand how wallet-based identity affects authentication, federation, consent, and data minimisation across both human and non-human access programmes.

By the numbers:

• More than 80% of the population has used it, making 25 to 35 million transactions per month.

Context

Digital identity wallets are a governance response to a basic problem in online access: passwords were never designed to prove real-world identity, and they do not let people share only the minimum information needed for a transaction. In a trust model built on static credentials, the security burden shifts onto central stores that become attractive targets for theft, fraud, and replay.

This article uses Belgium and itsme to show what changes when identity becomes a reusable, regulated digital credential rather than a one-off login event. The central IAM question is not whether authentication improves, but how privacy, proofing, and selective disclosure are controlled when identity data is meant to move across sectors and jurisdictions.

Key questions

Q: How should security teams govern digital identity wallets in an existing IAM programme?

A: Treat digital identity wallets as part of the human identity control stack, not as a separate pilot. Governance should cover enrolment assurance, issuer trust, verification policy, revocation, and exception handling. The enterprise needs a clear mapping between wallet ecosystems and the authentication standards it will accept, or wallet adoption will outpace control maturity.

Q: Why do digital identity wallets change the privacy risk model?

A: Wallets reduce privacy risk because they can share only the minimum claim needed for a transaction instead of exposing a full identity record. The trade-off is that relying parties must stop defaulting to broad data collection and instead enforce purpose-limited access to only the attributes required for the service.

Q: What signals show that wallet-based identity is actually working?

A: The strongest signals are fewer password resets, lower account takeover exposure, less unnecessary identity-data storage, and more transactions completed with minimal claims. If the organisation still requests full identity records for routine actions, the wallet model is not delivering its intended governance benefit.

Q: What should teams do when digital identity wallets cross from government to private services?

A: Teams should align federation, assurance mapping, and revocation rules before they allow a wallet credential to span sectors. Cross-domain use only works when the relying party can trust the issuer, validate presentation, and limit the data retained after the transaction ends.

Technical breakdown

How digital identity wallets change authentication

Digital identity wallets move trust from a memorised secret to a verified credential backed by a wallet and its issuing authority. In practice, the wallet can present only the claims needed for a transaction, instead of exposing a full identity record to every service. That matters because the control point shifts from password verification to assurance over issuance, device binding, and claim presentation. For IAM teams, the architecture is closer to federated attribute exchange than to conventional login, which means assurance, revocation, and replay resistance become more important than password policy.

Practical implication: treat wallet-based login as a claims governance problem, not just an authentication upgrade.

Why eIDAS 2.0 matters for federated identity and privacy

eIDAS 2.0 pushes European member states toward a digital identity wallet model that can support cross-sector use without centralising all personal data in one place. That is a structural change for IAM because it creates pressure for interoperable identity assurance, selective disclosure, and privacy-preserving transaction design. It also raises the bar for relying parties: they must be able to consume trusted claims from the wallet while preserving purpose limitation and avoiding unnecessary data collection. In other words, the control plane moves from account databases to identity assertions and their governance.

Practical implication: design relying-party workflows to accept minimal claims and avoid storing identity data you do not need.

Where biometric checks fit in wallet-based identity

The article links digital identity wallets to NIST, FIDO2, and iBeta biometrics standards because a wallet is only as trustworthy as the binding between the person, the device, and the credential. Liveness testing and strong device-bound authentication help resist spoofing, but they do not solve governance by themselves. The operational question is whether biometric proofing is used as a high-assurance factor in a tightly governed flow, or as a convenience layer that weakens assurance elsewhere. A wallet can reduce fraud, but only if the identity proofing chain is robust from enrolment through presentation.

Practical implication: align wallet rollout with strong proofing and liveness controls, not just user convenience.

Threat narrative

Attacker objective: The attacker objective is to impersonate legitimate users or exploit centralised identity data to commit fraud and abuse downstream access.

1. Entry occurs when attackers exploit weak passwords, stolen credentials, or overexposed identity records in conventional login flows, which the article presents as the baseline problem wallet models are meant to reduce.
2. Escalation happens when compromised credentials can be reused across services or tied back to centralised identity repositories that hold too much personal data in one place.
3. Impact follows when stolen login data or identity files are monetised for fraud, account takeover, or misuse of personal information across digital services.

NHI Mgmt Group analysis

Digital identity wallets are a response to identity overexposure, not just weak authentication: The article’s real shift is from proving a password to proving a claim with minimal disclosure. That changes the governance problem from secret protection to assertion control, relying-party trust, and consented data sharing. For IAM teams, this is a programme design issue, not a point solution.

Selective disclosure is the policy breakthrough, not the wallet app itself: If users can prove age, eligibility, or entitlement without handing over full identity records, the attack surface shrinks and privacy design gets stronger. But that only works when relying parties accept fewer attributes and stop collecting data they do not need. The implication is that identity architecture and data minimisation now have to be designed together.

eIDAS 2.0 is pushing identity governance toward interoperability by default: A wallet model only matters if it works across sectors, jurisdictions, and assurance levels. That makes federation, assurance mapping, and revocation semantics part of the core identity programme rather than edge concerns. Practitioners should expect more pressure to justify how claims are trusted, reused, and retired.

Biometric assurance must be treated as binding evidence, not as a privacy shortcut: The article rightly ties wallets to NIST, FIDO2, and iBeta-style liveness controls because a wallet without strong proofing merely moves the fraud problem. The governance lesson is that identity wallets do not eliminate verification, they relocate it to issuance and presentation. Teams should treat proofing quality as the control that determines whether the model is trustworthy.

Digital identity wallets widen the conversation from access management to trust management: Traditional IAM optimises who may log in. Wallet-based identity asks what a party may know, how long it may retain it, and whether the same proof can be reused safely elsewhere. That is a broader control question, and it will shape the next generation of digital identity governance.

What this signals

Selective disclosure will become a governance baseline: Wallet-based identity shifts the question from “can this user authenticate?” to “what claim is sufficient for this service?” That means IAM programmes need to redesign access journeys around minimum disclosure and claim-level trust rather than account-level overcollection.

Interoperability will expose weak federation design: Once identity proofs move across government and private services, poor issuer trust models, unclear revocation rules, and inconsistent assurance mapping will become visible quickly. Programmes that still rely on one-size-fits-all login flows will find wallet adoption harder to govern.

Identity proofing and presentation must be managed as one chain: A strong wallet presentation cannot compensate for weak enrolment, spoofable biometrics, or vague relying-party acceptance rules. The practical test is whether the whole identity journey reduces exposure without increasing centralised data retention.

For practitioners

• Define wallet trust boundaries Map which claims your services will accept from a digital identity wallet, which issuers you will trust, and what assurance level is required for each transaction type.
• Minimise data collection at the relying party Stop designing workflows that require full identity records when an age, entitlement, or eligibility claim is sufficient for the transaction.
• Align proofing with presentation risk Require device binding, liveness checks, and issuer assurance for any wallet flow that can affect regulated access, payments, or sensitive services.
• Plan for interoperability across sectors Document how wallet credentials, federation rules, and revocation will work when the same identity must be reused across government and private services.

Key takeaways

• Digital identity wallets are changing IAM from password-centric access control to claim-centric trust governance.
• The governance challenge is not only stronger authentication, but reduced data exposure and better selective disclosure.
• Programmes that want wallet-based identity to scale must align issuer trust, federation, proofing, and privacy rules.

Key terms

• Digital Identity Wallet: A digital identity wallet is software that stores and presents credentials for a person or organisation. It is a portability layer, not an authorization system. The wallet moves verified proof between parties, while the relying party still has to decide whether the proof is sufficient for the requested action.
• Selective Disclosure: Selective disclosure is the practice of sharing only the identity attributes needed for a specific decision. In credential-based systems, it reduces oversharing, lowers retention burden, and limits exposure when a verifier does not need the full record to make a trustworthy judgment.
• Identity proofing: The process of verifying that a person is who they claim to be before granting or restoring access. In higher-risk recovery paths, proofing can include stronger evidence checks such as government ID validation or liveness-based facial verification so the assurance level matches the sensitivity of the request.
• Federation entity: A federation entity is an organisation or technical participant that publishes metadata describing its keys, endpoints, and capabilities. It is the unit of participation inside the federation, and it can be an identity provider, relying party, wallet provider, or AI agent acting on behalf of a system.

Deepen your knowledge

NHI governance, agentic AI identity, and machine identity lifecycle are core topics in our NHI Foundation Level course, the industry's only accredited NHI security programme. If you are responsible for identity security strategy or NHI governance in your organisation, it is worth exploring.