To be honest, when I first had the thought of 'profiting from war', I felt a jolt inside, and it felt quite awkward. After all, watching the news of constant bombardment in the Middle East, with ordinary people displaced, thinking about how to make money from it seems a bit heartless.
But I forced myself to read the project white paper and the recent announcements of @SignOfficial several times, and the more I read, the more I felt that this matter might not be the same as our traditional understanding of 'profiting from war'.
What is the traditional 'profiting from war'?
That is selling arms, speculating on oil prices, hoarding food. It's when others are bleeding that someone takes the opportunity to raise prices tenfold, turning lifesaving items into profit-making tools. That kind of money feels hot to the touch, and you can’t sleep at night.
But what is Sign doing?
My current understanding is that it is more like hastily building a 'temporary shelter' on the ruins, or installing a 'security door' on a house that is about to collapse.
Think about it, when war breaks out in the Middle East, the trust system originally based on the dollar and Western banks might collapse. Their national data, the assets of ordinary people, and even government bonds may be frozen, altered, or wiped out at any moment. At this time, Sign rushes over and says, 'Don't worry, I will use blockchain technology to create a 'fingerprint-secured vault' for you, with the key in your own hands, no one can steal it.'
Is this considered profiting from war?
I think a more accurate statement is: this is providing 'survival tools' amidst chaos.
It's like an earthquake; someone takes the opportunity to sell water at high prices, that's profiting from disaster; but there are also people who rush to help reinforce houses to prevent secondary collapses, and then collect a little fee for their hard work, that's providing security services. Sign does the latter. It addresses the most painful issue in war-torn areas, the collapse of trust. Without this technology, digital assets over there might have long been reduced to zero, and the common people would be worse off.
Let's talk about my own investment thoughts:
I used to think that any project associated with the word 'war' was evil. But now I realize that the world does not stop functioning because of war; on the contrary, the more chaotic it is, the more frantic the demand for 'security' and 'sovereignty'.
The value of Sign is not based on the hope that the war lasts longer, but on the fact that 'no matter how long the war lasts, people need a place to secure their property'.
If peace is achieved tomorrow, the technology of Sign can be converted for civilian use, useful for digital identity and land registration.
If the war continues, Sign will become a 'digital Noah's Ark' over there, and it will become a necessity.
So, rather than saying it's 'profiting from war', it is better to say it's 'betting on the reconstruction of order in chaotic times'.
I am not one for lofty principles, but I feel that if my money invested can give people over there a bit more hope of securing their savings, and bring a little more order to the chaotic data, then even though this money is earned amidst the smoke of war, it still feels solid. After all, those who make a fortune quietly amidst the bombardment are often those selling bombs; while those who silently repair the city walls amidst the bombardment may be the ones truly worth accompanying for the long term.
Of course, I've also thought about the risks, dealing with the government is difficult, policies are unpredictable. But I am willing to hold on to the idea that Sign is a geopolitical infrastructure, nurturing it like planting a tree. Not to profit from the chaos, but to believe that in this broken world, someone needs to repair those cracks. $SIGN #Sign地缘政治基建