I was analyzing several examples of signatures where everything seemed technically valid, but the situation itself raised doubts. In one case, a wallet with a good history was used to validate a malicious contract. This shows that in Web3, we often confuse the technical validity of a key with real security.
EthSign uses attestations in the Sign Protocol. The system creates a record that the smart contract sees as a trigger for executing an action — for example, for transferring funds. This automates processes, but at the same time creates the risk of blind trust in technical confirmations.
The problem is that the signature only confirms ownership of the key, not the intentions of the signer. Without checking the history of actions for the wallet, such a mechanism remains vulnerable. Security here depends not so much on the mere fact of the signature as on the reputation behind the address.
The question is whether we will build a transparent system on this or simply automate reporting where there is still a lack of actual trust?
#SignDigitalSovereignInfra $SIGN @SignOfficial
