sign Geopolitical Infrastructure $SIGN
I have seriously thought, if SIGN does not succeed, where is it likely to die?
I have written a lot about the logic of SIGN, and instead, I deliberately started thinking about the question: If this project ultimately fails, what is the reason?
Many people love to talk about the space of elevation, but I tend to first think about how it fails.
I believe the first danger is "exceeding".
The current essence of SIGN is the creation of certificates and distribution rules. But the problem is that many projects can create a simplified set themselves, even if it's not perfect, it can be used. If this scenario appears widely, SIGN will become a "choice" instead of a "necessary dependency".
The second danger is "the pace of progress".
What you are talking about now is the narrative at the state level, like the identity system in the Middle East and digital government. But the reality is that such matters progress very slowly, and we probably won't see clear results even after a year or two. The market has no patience, and once expectations drift away from reality, it's easy to abandon them.
The third danger is "user perception weakness".
If you ask regular users, most of them don't even know what SIGN does. Because it is not a product aimed at users, but a tool aimed at systems. These types of projects can face a problem: a large number of people use it, but no one discusses it.
From an investment perspective, this is really a contradictory point.
But on the other hand, these risks clarify one thing: SIGN does not follow a "emotion-driven" path, but rather "embedded growth".
So my conclusion now is very simple: $SIGN is not the type that lives on hype, it either slowly becomes infrastructure or gets marginalized because it is not "necessary" enough.
There is no middle ground.
Many projects fail due to competition, but like SIGN, it is more likely to fail because "no one is obliged to use it". This is the point that needs attention.
@SignOfficial