I really like the idea of Sign: make things like attestations very basic and reliable so people do not have to think about them. This is how things actually become popular and widely used.
There is something that keeps bothering me. When you build something that people really need it creates a demand that you can count on. But the price of $SIGN is based on what people think it will do not what it actually does. There are 1.64 billion Sign tokens there and 96 million more are added every month. This means that the price can change a lot, which's a problem for big organizations and governments that need to know how much things will cost.
The idea of Sign being an infrastructure and the way the token is set up are not really working together. If Sign becomes really good at being an reliable infrastructure it will not be as exciting to investors over time.
So who is going to keep buying @SignOfficial in the run: the people who use it and need to know how much it will cost or the people who are hoping to make a profit? These are two different groups and what happens to Sign will depend on which one is, in charge when the hype dies down.