Not at all an expert on this, but my impression is the trust model is different for IPFS than for the web. IPFS is a distributed CAS, so the address is the has

Not at all an expert on this, but my impression is the trust model is different for IPFS than for the web. IPFS is a distributed CAS, so the address is the hash of the content (this can be verified by the client). Whereas the web focuses on "I'm talking to who I think I'm talking to", IPFS focuses on "I'm getting the content I asked for". So, to answer your question, I think authorship is an orthogonal concern to IPFS's focus, which is verifiably delivering the requested bytes. All that said, IPNS likely bridges the content/authorship gap you're asking about. > A name in IPNS is the hash of a public key. It is associated with a record containing information about the hash it links to that is signed by the corresponding private key. New records can be signed and published at any time. https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/ipns/ https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/ipns/ In this context, that key would be held by the author, allowing the author to publish different content by signing it with the key.