Recently, I am preparing to switch to a new community and want to apply for an administrator position. I thought that since I have experience managing a community of over 200 people and the activity level was good, it shouldn't be a big problem. However, the other party took a glance and directly said that your community is not famous.
I believe the core issue is not whether that community is famous, but that the contribution record cannot exist independently from the platform.
The management experience you accumulate in Community A cannot be taken with you when you move to another place. Whether the other party recognizes it depends entirely on their mood, and there is no third party that can verify it.
@SignOfficial 's verifiable credential directly addressed this issue. If I had on-chain records of my management in that community of 200 people—active member count, management duration, and handling of tasks generated as Sign Protocol's attestation.
This credential does not belong to that community platform; it exists independently on-chain, and anyone can verify it without needing that community to be famous for it to be valid.
What the new community sees is not "I haven't heard of this platform," but a signed on-chain contribution record with specific data. Fame has nothing to do with the authenticity of the record.
$SIGN 's identity system supports creating such contribution records into portable on-chain credentials that can be taken to another platform community or even to another industry without needing to prove oneself all over again.
This is truly a solution for those who have worked hard on small platforms—your experience should be valuable and should not be determined by whether the other party recognizes the place you worked at.
Of course, for this system to be implemented, enough communities and platforms need to adopt the same standards. Right now, it is still an inference rather than a reality timeline; it is uncertain. But this demand is something that people like me genuinely need.