I have once again pulled an all-nighter, feeling like I'm about to become American.

I stayed up late going through the document of @SignOfficial , initially wanting to find a less conspicuous small detail to tackle, but I ended up getting tripped up by a parameter, maxValidFor.

At first, I didn't take it seriously; I thought it was just about the validity period, like casually adding a deadline when filling out a form, at most a minor configuration. But as I looked further down the Schema page, I realized it was completely different.

In $SIGN , maxValidFor is not just a note added later, but a constraint that was written into the Schema from the beginning, meaning how long this type of proof can last.

Hmm... this is quite interesting, many projects you are qualified for today do not equal being qualified three months later; passing verification today does not mean it will still be valid six months later. If the issue of how long it becomes invalid is not incorporated into the structure from the outset, it will eventually revert back to the old path of backend lists and manual updates, each checking their own.

And $SIGN precisely addresses this issue, not only wanting to teach you how to issue proof but also proactively handling how long such proof remains valid and whether it can be revoked, and how it will be understood uniformly by other systems in the future.

This greatly enhances convenience, so my understanding of Sign is no longer just whether it can issue more proofs. I care more about whether it can make the logic of this kind of proof naturally carry a time validity boundary, truly making it an action that cross-system will default to comply with.

If that cannot be achieved, many proofs will still just be electronic certificates, but if it can be done, what Sign encounters won't just be at the proof level, but when this proof should automatically lose its validity. #Sign geopolitical infrastructure