The fact that bothered me about SIGN was this: a signature can certify flawlessly and yet fail to provide the answer to the question which is the only one which counts.

But who was entitled to make that claim?

That is the skipped mess. The word verifiable is most popular among teams, and the breakdown in the workflow tends to be a step shorter. Some reviewer is looking at a valid record, a valid wallet, a valid timestamp, and even then must seek to know whether this issuer authorized it, whether this operator authorized it, whether this authorization was of the appropriate role, or merely someone who had the authority to sign.

That is not a proof problem. It is a problem in authority-routing.

The thing that SIGN made me like is the fact that, it treats claims, approvals, and authorization as structured evidence rather than loose signatures that are floating around in wistless vacuum. The schema provides the form of the record. The attestation provides it with a signed condition. The evidence layer allows the verifier to pose more queries than "is this real? and come nearer to "was this permitted?

And that is where $SIGN begins to have significance with me as well. When these issuance, approval and verification rails continue to be used, the token is important due to repeated system activity and not ornament.

My pressure test on it is whether this remains clean when the position is swapped, delegates come and go and old approvals remain in the wild.

A valid signature is easy.

The legitimacy trail is the difficult aspect.
@SignOfficial #SignDigitalSovereignInfra $SIGN