The “no vendor lock-in” angle keeps bothering me in a good way
I’ve been circling back to $SIGN a few times, and weirdly it’s not the tech itself that sticks first. It’s this idea around vendor lock-in.
Because if you look at how a lot of government systems get built, it’s kind of the same pattern. Big contract, one vendor, everything works… until it doesn’t. And then suddenly migrating is painful, auditing is limited, and adapting to new policies becomes harder than it should be. The system is there, but control feels blurry.
What I find interesting with how @SignOfficial frames it is that they seem to treat this as a core problem, not a side effect. The whole S.I.G.N. approach feels like it’s trying to keep control at the sovereign level, not at the platform level. Standards-based, open schemas, more flexibility to move or integrate without being tied to one provider.
It sounds simple when you say it like that, but the more I think about it, the more I realize how uncommon it actually is. Most systems don’t lock you in obviously, they just kind of… drift that way over time.
Not saying this is easy to pull off, especially in real deployments. But if they actually manage it, the implications go beyond just one product. It could change how these systems get built in the first place.
Still watching this closely.