@SignOfficial I noticed the issue in a boring place, which is usually where these systems tell the truth...... A verification request kept bouncing between services because one side wanted the full citizen record, another only needed proof that the record existed, and compliance still wanted something it could audit later without arguing over screenshots and exported spreadsheets. The retry loop was not a bug exactly. It was more like an institutional habit showing itself......

That is where $SIGN started to make more sense to me...... Not as a way to hide everything, and not as a clean answer to privacy either. More as a way to separate what must be checked from what never needed to be broadly exposed in the first place. A claim can stay narrow, the proof can travel, and the audit trail can remain intact for the people who are actually supposed to inspect it.....

What changed in my head was the compliance piece. Usually privacy gets treated like friction, something that slows verification down or makes regulators nervous. Here it looks more like boundary-setting. Public visibility is reduced, but authorized review is still preserved. That is a different design choice, and it probably changes behavior more than the cryptography does......

I still do not know how well that holds under political pressure or scale. The real test is what happens when institutions are tempted to ask for everything anyway......#signdigitalsovereigninfra