The thing that kept on nagging me about the use of SIGN is the ease at which a clean system of eligibility can turn into a timing nightmare.
That is the skipped problem.
One day a person can qualify on Monday, on Wednesday they are inactive and on Friday they are updated and they may appear inside the workflow as though nothing has changed. The proof is real. The record is real. The wrong decision is made due to the uncertainty of the time.
It is in that regard that these systems tend to become ugly. A record is checked by one team which was true at the time of issue. It is used by another team at execution. The state shifted somewhere in between. A wallet was changed, a freeze was struck, an approval lapsed, an action delegated intervened. Now one is matching timestamps and side notes and ancient recordings simply to respond to one simple question: is this still the case when we took action?
That is what made SIGN more of a clumsy action to me. Not the proof itself. How the stack appears to be constructed to ensure that the proofs are bound to time, status and subsequent execution rather than floating about as timeless facts.
That is the place too, where I begin to think that $SIGN is real. Provided that these rails continue to be used everywhere, the proof, timing, and action must always remain in conformity the token will have an effect via that working burden.
The test that I do to gauge the pressure is whether it remains clean when updates, freezes and delegated actions begin to accumulate.
The proof may be valid and yet late.
At that point trust is broken.
@SignOfficial #SignDigitalSovereignInfra $SIGN
