Topic starter
25/10/2026 11:07 am
TL;DR: Nearly half of European consumers abandoned a transaction because identity verification was too difficult or time-consuming, IDnow’s EUDI Wallet Consumer Survey found. Identity proofing now affects completion rates, so verification design has to cut repeated effort without weakening assurance.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by IDnow: “The Identity Gap: Friction Vs Conversion. What the EUDI Wallet Will and Won’t Fix Tomorrow”.
By the numbers:
- 46% of European consumers abandoned a transaction because identity verification was too difficult or too time-consuming.
- 54% of Millennials abandoned a transaction because identity verification was too difficult or too time-consuming.
- 56% of Gen Z consumers abandoned a transaction because identity verification was too difficult or too time-consuming.
Key questions
Q: Why do customers abandon identity verification even when they intend to transact?
A: Customers abandon verification when the process takes too long, repeats across providers, or asks for more data than the transaction requires.
Q: Why do identity verification controls affect customer conversion?
A: Identity controls affect conversion because every extra step adds friction to the onboarding journey.
Q: How can organisations reduce repeated identity verification without losing assurance?
A: By standardising identity evidence across systems so the same subject is not forced to re-prove identity at every touchpoint.
Practitioner guidance
- Standardise verification reuse across channels Map where the same customer is forced through separate identity checks and eliminate duplicate evidence collection where regulatory rules allow it.
- Design for selective disclosure Limit each transaction to the attributes actually required, so customers can complete verification without over-sharing identity data.
- Align wallet acceptance with KYC controls Treat wallet credentials as one input to onboarding, then keep fraud signal review and exception handling in place for higher-risk cases.
Bottom line: Identity verification friction is no longer a pure UX issue because it directly affects completion rates and customer acquisition.
Glossary terms: Identity Verification Friction, Selective Disclosure, Reusable Identity, Wallet-Native Onboarding
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 7 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
27/10/2026 7:15 pm
Compliance-first identity verification creates conversion debt: The current model was built to satisfy assurance requirements in isolation, not to preserve transaction completion. When every relying party re-verifies the same person independently, the programme accumulates friction that turns into measurable customer loss. The implication is that identity teams must stop treating repeated verification as a neutral control choice; it is now a business outcome with direct revenue impact.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What changes when identity proofing is portable across services?
A: Portable proofing changes the model from repeated, provider-specific verification to a reusable trust artefact that can be presented to multiple relying parties. That reduces duplication, shortens onboarding, and creates a better user experience. It also shifts governance toward credential acceptance rules, exception handling, and ongoing assurance rather than repeated evidence gathering.
👉 Read our full editorial: EUDI wallet friction is driving customer drop-off in verification flows
This post was modified 7 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group