From 2025, I have clearly seen a problem: the majority of "user growth" in Web3 is no longer users, but behaviors optimized to bypass the system and that is when trust begins to lose its meaning.
On-chain transparency, complete wallet history, but when evaluating a user or making a decision, what I have is still just data, not meaningful trust.
From this perspective, @SignOfficial appears reasonable. And a big question arises: Will Sign solve the market problem of 2026 correctly?
Sign creates a trust layer by standardizing data into schemas, turning behaviors into attestations, and allowing the information to be verified again. This is the foundation for verifiable data that Web3 definitely needs if it wants to go further.
But the problem is that Sign solves the technical problem correctly, but it may not address the "pain point". A wallet can have dozens of attestations (mint, vote, campaign), but what is more important is whether those behaviors are trustworthy or not? Attestation ≠ trust. If the input is noisy (bot, sybil), then signing confirmations only makes the data look more trustworthy, not make it more trustworthy.
Some people say "having attestations is still better than having nothing." I agree, but it's not enough. The market is shifting to behavioral trust evaluated by behavioral patterns, not just events. Meanwhile, Sign has only stopped at recording "what has happened".
Nonetheless, I don't think Sign is redundant. As Web3 moves into RWA, identity, compliance, where audit and clear accountability are needed, then attestation + verification will be almost mandatory.
Currently, I see Sign as a good notarization system but existing in a market where most "documents" still do not have enough value to be notarized.