Looking at Twitter is a good way to anticipate some edge cases.
For example, think about identity from a social perspective. On Twitter, identity is defined not just by the "@handle", but by the name and avatar image as well. Changing the name or avatar has little consequence in Twitter's platform, so some users do that a lot to play with their identity.
BTW, playing with identity--defining it, testing new attributes, evolving it over time--is a MAJOR attraction of social networks, if not the main reason anyone uses social networks at all. If your platform attempts to treat identity purely as a fixed thing, you're going to have trouble with long-term engagement. You need to give users identifying attributes that they can easily change regularly.
Speaking of which--while Twitter users can change their @username, it breaks all previous conversations. Why? Because Twitter manages conversational references solely by the text of the tweet. So if you change your @username to @newname, all those @username references in old conversations will go black (i.e. not be linked anymore).
I believe it also releases your old @username for someone else to register!
So, it seems quite uncommon for folks to change their @usernames on Twitter. In fact the few people and orgs I know who wanted a new ID on Twitter just started a new account and then used their old account to tell their followers to follow the new one. That way old conversations stay linked and in control. And it's a sort of follow "list cleaning" in that only the most engaged folks follow you to the new account.