"Government client" doesn't mean "legally integrated"
👇👇👇
Last week I was digging through Thai ETA — Thailand's Electronic Transactions Act. Not because I planned to, someone in the community chat said "Sign has government clients in Southeast Asia" and I couldn't just nod along.
ETDA is a regulator. It doesn't just "allow" digital signatures. It requires every government agency to maintain its own signer verification procedures. Not an external provider. The agency. Itself.
Sign Protocol issues on-chain attestations. Clean, verifiable, cross-chain.
But between "verified on-chain" and "compliant with ETDA requirements for a state body" — there's a real gap.
@SignOfficial hasn't stated anywhere that this gap is closed. Maybe it is — through a compliance layer I can't find in public docs. Or maybe Thailand stays on the client list because they signed a PoC somewhere in 2024.
I don't know. That's exactly what stops me here.
If anyone has seen a real case where a Sign attestation passed as legally binding under Thai ETA — point me to where I should read.