The Trade Desk is building version 2.0, an open-source upgrade that removes third-party cookies from the equation. Unified ID 2.0 will initially rely on encrypted email addresses from opted-in consumers.

Identity cooperatives, like DigiTrust and Open ID Consortium, haven’t had much luck in the past. One concern is that publishers can lose control over their unique first-party audience data, thus undermining their bargaining position with the buy side.

When a person visits a webpage, they’ll be asked to provide their email address for the purpose of identification across the network of publishers that have adopted Unified ID 2.0. That email then creates an ID but isn’t passed along the bidstream. Instead, an encrypted ID is transmitted.

The direct identity opportunity set remains limited to 300–500 startups and it’s difficult to make the case that there are deep exit opportunities as the list of potential buyers is limited. Identity solutions face very high minimum scale requirements and, therefore, identity startups must create or connect to a platform of some sort to generate real utility (ie. Okta has +6,500 integrations.) Thus, IPO opportunities for standalone entities also seem limited.
Identity startups face real barriers to entry (regulatory, compliance, and trust challenges at par with FinTech.) They also have to compete with platforms like Microsoft/Salesforce, which may ultimately become the dominant purveyor(s) of digital identity. Partnering with consortia may be a way for startups to “bootstrap” scale and compete against these established platforms, and some are employing this strategy. 

Foundational identity efforts are better suited to grant or impact funding. The Omidyar Network, the Gates Foundation, and the Mozilla Foundation all invest in foundational DID. Functional identity isn’t viewed as a category of it’s own, so it’s hard to find venture investors that focus specifically on identity.