I think the mistake is to treat credential verification and value distribution as two separate internet problems. They are usually the same problem, just seen from different sides. First you need to know who someone is, what they are allowed to claim, or whether they actually did something. Then, almost immediately, you need to decide what follows from that. Access. Payment. Allocation. Reputation. Rights.
That is where the internet still feels strangely immature.
We built systems that can spread information everywhere, but not systems that make trust travel well. Credentials stay trapped inside institutions. Payout systems stay trapped inside jurisdictions. Compliance sits in another corner entirely, slowing everything down because nobody wants liability they cannot trace later. So the real world ends up running on screenshots, PDFs, manual reviews, fragmented databases, and intermediaries charging for the privilege of connecting one weak system to another.
That is why @SignOfficial is more interesting to me when I stop thinking about crypto and start thinking about administrative burden. Users want less repetition. Builders want fewer integrations that break under pressure. Institutions want something auditable. Regulators want visibility without chaos.
If this works, it will not be because people find it exciting. It will be because it makes a painful process more coherent. A system like this earns trust only by reducing friction without creating new ambiguity. And that is harder than it sounds.
