I didn’t expect the real story to be about distribution, not speculation
I was looking into $SIGN again and something felt a bit off at first. Most token models I’m used to kind of orbit around market cycles… demand goes up when attention goes up, then fades when things cool down.
But with Sign, I keep coming back to a different angle. It doesn’t really feel like the core driver is speculation. It’s more tied to how much “stuff” actually flows through the system.
Like every time a credential gets verified, or a piece of data gets turned into an attestation, or a distribution event gets recorded… that activity itself creates demand at the protocol level. Not because people are trading, but because the system is being used.
And then I saw that number about government transfers. $1.4 trillion affected by targeting errors. I had to read that twice. If even a small part of that moves through something like Sign’s infrastructure, where distribution is tied to verifiable evidence, then the demand curve starts to look very different from what we usually see in crypto.
It’s less about hype cycles, more about throughput. Less about narratives, more about actual usage.
I’m not saying it’s guaranteed to play out like that, because a lot has to go right for institutions to adopt something like this. But the framing is interesting. It shifts the whole way I think about where value might come from.
Still thinking about this one.