Most identity systems today are built around a simple model:
A central authority sits in the middle. Applications connect to it. And identity flows through that hub.
This hub-and-spoke approach has worked well for a long time. It gives organizations control, clear governance, and a single place to manage users.
But it also comes with limitations.
Every new system needs to connect back to the hub. Identity gets recreated across environments. And reuse across domains becomes difficult.
What if identity wasn’t organized around a central hub, but a network?
From hub-and-spoke to a web of data
Instead of relying on a single identity provider to mediate every interaction, identity can be modeled as a network of trusted data exchanges.
Different organizations can issue digital ID credentials.
Different applications can verify them.
And users can share that data when it’s needed.
There’s no single system that needs to sit in the middle of every interaction.
Multiple issuers, multiple verifiers
In this model, trust isn’t concentrated in one provider.
It’s distributed across multiple digital ID issuers, based on what verifiers choose to accept.
A bank might issue a digital ID credential. A telco might issue another. A government might issue another.
Applications don’t need tight integrations with each of these issuers, they just need to be able to verify and trust the digital ID they receive.
Of course, this only works where those credentials are trusted and accepted by the verifier.
This allows identity to be built from multiple trusted sources, rather than a single system of record.
Data flows based on user interaction
One of the most important shifts is how data moves.
In traditional models, data is pulled between systems through integrations.
In a web of data model, information flows through user interaction.
An application requests specific data. The user reviews that request. And, if they consent, the data is shared from their ID wallet.
This reduces the need to copy and store data across multiple systems, while still allowing it to be used where needed.
However, this doesn’t replace existing identity systems overnight.
Hub-based models still play an important role, especially for internal identity and access management.
But as identity needs to work across more domains, more partners, and more applications, this network-based approach becomes increasingly relevant.
The shift is a different way of thinking about identity.
Less about connecting everything to a central system.
More about enabling trusted data to move across a network, with user consent and based on what each verifier accepts.
