The more I think about verification infrastructure, the more I feel its real power is rarely visible at first.
It does not usually move value by itself.
It shapes the conditions under which value is allowed to move.
That is why this SIGN angle feels important to me.
A payment can look simple on the surface, but underneath it there are always rules, permissions, identity checks, and assumptions about what counts as valid. What stood out in the original post was exactly this idea: Sign is not really competing with the movement of value itself, but sitting beneath it as part of the verification layer that quietly decides how that movement becomes possible.
To me, that makes verification much more than a support tool.
It becomes a kind of invisible gatekeeper.
And that is where the deeper question begins.
Because once shared schemas and common standards make systems easier to build, they also start carrying inherited assumptions about what is valid, who gets recognized, and which rules become normal by default.
That does not make the infrastructure less interesting.
If anything, it makes it more serious.
The real question is not whether trust can move under the surface.
It is whether people are comfortable with who gets to shape that surface in the first place.