I'm spending quite a bit of time learning about @SignOfficial , this is a project I am very interested in after it was listed on Binance. I realize that Sign protects data very well, but what about the users? Suddenly this question arises: Has Sign forgotten the most important factor?
I also thought that if the system is strong enough, users will be safe until I see a familiar case in crypto. A user connects a wallet to a fake site, signs a transaction that looks like “verify,” and a few minutes later their assets are gone. No hack, no bug, just a wrong signature.
Data can be locked down very tightly. But users still lose money, so what will they rely on to trust?
The attestation of Sign cannot be tampered with, does not depend on a server, the tech is great, but the most important point is the signature; just pressing sign is considered a commitment. Wrong is wrong and cannot be fixed.
According to the FTC, every year there are millions of fraud reports, a large part starts from phishing, not from the system side but targeting behavior.
Sign does not make risks disappear, but users inadvertently have to bear the consequences. No password reset, cannot recover if you sign incorrectly.
This creates a quite clear paradox. The smoother the experience, the faster the operation, the higher the likelihood of making mistakes. A click that seems harmless can become an irreversible decision.
So the important question is no longer whether Sign protects data well, but whether users have enough knowledge to protect themselves. If the answer is no, then no matter how good the technology is, the outcome will not differ much. It's just that this time, the fault does not lie with the system anymore but with the users themselves.