During this period, I specifically went to check out a range of Web3 projects in the Middle East. I originally thought I would see a bunch of new chains and new DeFi projects, but I found a somewhat counterintuitive situation: most projects are still focused on traffic, trading, and assets, while there are not many that are truly focused on the 'underlying structure.' In other words, everyone is thinking about how to bring money in, but very few are thinking about how to distribute it more reasonably. I noticed that SIGN happens to have the opposite approach. It does not engage in trading or compete for TVL, but rather focuses on a more fundamental question: once funds enter the system, what rules should govern their distribution to whom. This question may not be obvious in a bull market, but in a complex market, it actually determines the efficiency of the entire system. As far as I understand, many projects in the Middle East have policy support or sovereign capital behind them. In this environment, 'distribution rules' are more important than 'funding capability.' Because money is not the problem; the issue is how to accurately allocate it to the right people and the right institutions. The value of SIGN lies here; it standardizes 'qualifications' through a credential system. Who has identity, who has behavioral records, who meets the criteria, can all be verified on-chain, and then automatically participate in the distribution process. Once this mechanism is embedded in the infrastructure, it is not easily replaceable. So now when I look at $SIGN, I don't see it as an ordinary token, but more like a bet on a trend: the future of Web3 is not just about transactions and assets, but also about rules and distribution. Many people are still looking for the next blockbuster project, but I am more concerned about these things that 'may not look sexy, but once used, are indispensable.' The Middle East market may just be the best soil to validate this kind of infrastructure. @SignOfficial $SIGN #Sign Geopolitical infrastructure. If we look at the ETH Gas mechanism and Midnight together, we will find a significant difference. A couple of days ago, while browsing blockchain data, I suddenly thought of a fundamental question that few people seriously consider: why are almost all public chains now using the same token to simultaneously bear both 'assets' and 'Gas'? ETH does this, BNB does this, SOL does this as well; everyone assumes this is the industry standard, as if no one has ever questioned whether this design itself is reasonable. But if you think about it from another angle, this situation is actually a bit strange. So from this perspective, the focus of Midnight may not be on 'cheaper' or 'faster' at all, but rather on 'more stable.' This may not sound as sexy, but for real usage scenarios, it is actually more critical. Many people are still trying to understand it using the logic of traditional public chains, which makes it easy to feel like it’s nothing special. But if viewed from the perspective of 'future infrastructure,' this design starts to become quite interesting. Of course, whether this structure can ultimately work out still depends on ecological development and real usage situations. The history of blockchain is not short of clever designs; what is lacking is a system that can be adopted long-term. But at least in terms of Gas, Midnight is indeed making a somewhat different attempt. Sometimes, the real change in the industry is not a technical breakthrough, but rather when someone starts to question those rules that are taken for granted. ETH has made 'token = Gas' an industry standard, and now, someone is beginning to attempt to dismantle it. This issue itself is already quite worth $SIGN #Sign .