What stayed with me after spending time thinking through how I would try to break $SIGN — @SignOfficial , #SignDigitalSovereignInfra — wasn't the obvious attack surface. It wasn't the smart contracts or the token mechanics. It was the schema layer. Sign's attestation system lets anyone define a schema, which means the integrity of a claim depends entirely on whether the schema itself is trustworthy — and right now, there's no friction in that step. I could create a schema that looks credible, issue attestations against it, and nothing in the interface stops that from circulating as if it were verified. The system is technically functioning correctly the whole time. That's the uncomfortable part: Sign doesn't break easily from the outside, but it can be quietly hollowed from the inside through the very openness that makes it useful. The protocol is sound. The social layer around schema credibility is not. I'm still not sure whether that's a design gap, an intentional tradeoff, or just the early-stage reality of building infrastructure for trust in a space that hasn't decided yet who gets to define it.