#signdigitalsovereigninfra $SIGN
What I'm trying to understand... This "unified wallet" idea is actually not as simple it looks from the outside but inside. It's a completely mixed idea. Because normally, each bank's system different. Their own rules, infrastructure, backend logic - all different but different. Now bringing all together and showing them with an interface... It's not just a UI problem, it requires a cordination layer behind it. Actually @SignOfficial is providing SDK here - meaning technically, they want to create a common entry point. From where the user can see multiple bank balances in one app, can make transactions - in short - I am tho obak.
It sounds convenient.
But then question arises - who has control? They say non-custodial, meaning they don't keep the private key with themslves. The banks are managing their users and @SignOfficial is basically exposing everything as a layer. There is an interesting balance here. On one side is central bank oversight, on the other bank-level control... and in the middle is the Sign interface.
But honestly...
This place is sensitive. Because no mater how smooth the abstraction layer is - if the backend trust alignment is not right, the whole system become fragile. Account abstraction is hiding complexity - the user will only operate with a number or email. Good... but the more it is simplified, the more dependncy is created on system. I am not dismissing it outright - the idea is strong. But if the execution is not clean - it will not take long for this unified layer to convert from convenience to risk.
But here is the real test...