Treat "trustworthy" like electricity and water: I use Sign to verify the underlying friction in Middle Eastern scenarios
Brothers speak human language, I look at Sign not the grand narrative, I only care about how solid the evidence chain is. When this set of tools is in hand, it comes down to two steps: I use Sign to define a structured metric, then I use Sign to input the credentials, and then I repeatedly check the same record with different accounts and different links to see if the query results of Sign can be consistently reproduced. Here, the value of SIGN lies not in "telling stories", but in the costs and incentives required for each write, index, retrieval, and verification, whether it can support long-term high-frequency validation.
Shifting the perspective to cross-border collaboration and institutional cooperation in the Middle East, the demand is often not for "more openness" but for "greater auditability". I use Sign to simulate a real problem: the same qualification is cited by multiple parties, and later the entity information is updated or revoked; can Sign allow the downstream to perceive it immediately, and can the old version still be traced? Don't brag, many agreements falter at this step, either revocation is merely a formality, or the retrieval paths are inconsistent. Compared to solutions like EAS, I feel the difference is not in whether a statement can be issued, but in that Sign treats verification more like infrastructure, willing to make "querying, auditing, and reviewing" the main product process, rather than a supplementary capability.
I am not sure how SIGN will evolve, but I am clear about how I will accept it: I will make multiple downstream references to the same credential, stress-testing Sign's indexing delay and consistency, and then use updates and revocations to push the points of contention onto the evidence to see if it can reduce friction. Achieving this step, SIGN starts to feel like it's footing the bill for real usage.