One thing that’s been bothering me about Sign is how the same schema can mean completely different things depending on who issues it. I’ve been digging into verifiable credentials lately, and this keeps coming up. Take a simple schema like DeFi Experience Certificate. Two issuers use the exact same fields, same structure, same cryptographic format. On paper, they look identical.
In practice, one issuer might require 12 months of active trading, minimum 50k TVL, and at least 5 governance votes. Another issuer hands it out after completing three testnet tasks. Both credentials pass every technical check same schema ID, same valid signature.
The verifier is left with the hard part deciding which one actually carries weight. It’s no longer just is this credential valid but how seriously should I take this issuer.
I like that Sign makes credentials portable and verifiable across chains. That part is genuinely strong. But I don’t like that the protocol currently leaves the entire trust weighting problem to the verifier. At scale, this creates hidden fragmentation credentials that look interchangeable but aren’t.
The more I think about it, the more I realise this is the next real bottleneck. Sign has solved the technical portability. The missing piece is a lightweight, on chain way to signal issuer quality so verifiers don’t have to guess. Until that gap closes, reuse of credentials will always be more complicated than the whitepaper makes it sound.
#signdigitalsovereigninfra $SIGN