The subtle point here is that for privacy in our digital communities it’s important to focus on presenting the minimum amount of information - ‘credentials’ - that we need to transact with others, and to get used to controlling that ourselves, and not leaving it to, say, Facebook to be our identity provider.
In the co-op voting example above, all the coop needs to know about ‘you’ for the voting is ‘is a member’ and not ‘who you are’. To get into the gig you should prove you have paid and maybe that you are not a minor. You might offer more, but you should be asked, and can decline.
In our communities we will have ‘issuers’ … who perhaps run some sort of reliable welcome ritual, with fact checking and also to make sure it’s a really you before issuing the credential. People can selectively disclose only what is necessary to ‘verifiers’ of those creds who need proof of some fact (their ‘policy’) before they allow you in or to get something that is yours (and not someone else’s). If we make it easy, with ‘badges’ and wallets and free of some of the jargon we might succeed.
IMHO we need to be be wary of ‘creating a digital identity’ with a number until we have the tech worked out properly. Fortunately, with a pragmatic approach we can do this with just the wallets and the badges and a bit of crypto - not necessarily a blockchain
See this nice article by Dave Birch which makes the point much better https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbirch/2020/09/08/trust-me-im-a-doctor-on-linkedin/#3c53cdea6c1e