I was labeled a "witch", but this time I don't want to blame the project team.

Last week when checking the airdrop status, it showed "witch".

It's not that I haven't created multiple accounts; it's that the address has genuinely been used for half a year with real money. When I entered the appeal portal, I had to submit on-chain interaction records, wallet login videos, and even explain why a certain transfer happened at that specific time. I stared at the screen for a whole night and eventually closed the webpage. It's not that I was in the wrong; it's that the cost of proving I'm "not a witch" is higher than being labeled a witch. @SignOfficial

Later, I pondered that it's not wrong for airdrop projects to counter witchcraft, but the current verification method essentially punishes normal people. The bots that actually create accounts can submit the entire set of materials in seconds, while users who interact honestly are filtered out because they "don't want to bother".

This reminded me of what Sign Protocol is working on. Its core logic is to pre-validate — when you interact, it generates structured credentials on-chain, and when you need to prove you're not a witch, you can directly present an attestation with a timestamp and version rules, without having to go over historical records every time you're questioned. The essence of this mechanism is selective disclosure; you only need to prove "I meet the qualifications", without needing to show everything.

$SIGN The current circulation is not large, and there is definitely unlocking pressure in the future, I admit that. But I find it interesting that the issue it tackles is painful enough — proving who you are has always been treated as a fundamental ability in Web3, yet it has never been properly solved.

I wonder if any of you have ever been misjudged. Anyway, next time I’m asked to prove "I am not a witch", I just want to throw a on-chain credential over, and I'm too lazy to waste words on the rest. #Sign地缘政治基建