During this period, many people are discussing geopolitical issues, still accustomed to first looking at emotions and popularity. But my perspective on @SignOfficial is a bit different; I am more concerned about when identity, permissions, fund distribution, and qualification certification start requiring verifiability, who will actually serve as the "evidence layer" at the bottom. The term Sign leaves an impression on me, not for shouting concepts, but for its work on schema and attestation, which are more foundational aspects. In simple terms, the more complex the environment, the less you can rely solely on a phrase like "it's on the chain" to solve problems. You also need to clarify who issued it, who verifies it, according to what rules it is executed, and how to trace it back if issues arise. This is also why I don't want to regard $SIGN only as a short-term topic; it feels more like a position that may not be the hottest initially, but once genuinely adopted, the market will reinterpret its significance. I am more concerned about whether there will be more real scenarios that incorporate this capability. If there are, #Sign地缘政治基建 will become increasingly smooth; if not, it will remain in the observation period. My attitude at this stage is very simple: continue watching, not to deify it, but also not to underestimate it.