So my judgment on SIGN is very simple now. This project is not without potential; I just care more about how to turn 'verifiable' into 'deployable', then turn 'deployable' into 'reusable', and finally turn 'reusable' into a demand that can truly support the valuation.

Today at noon I went downstairs to pick up a package, and an uncle in front of me was searching for a long time for his ID photo, looking back and forth in his phone, album, and chat records, and in the end, he still had to resend it. Just this small matter made a strange point suddenly pop into my mind: we actually repeat proving who we are every day, proving whether this thing is mine, proving whether I am qualified to receive it, whether I can handle it, whether it should pass. You usually don’t feel it’s valuable, but when it comes to queuing, filling out forms, and supplementing materials, you realize how annoying this 'proof cost' is.
So recently I looked at Sign, and the first thing I focused on was not the token price, but that small corner in the white paper that many people overlook. It not only mentions airdrops, distributions, and protocols, but also electronic visas, border inspections, academic credentials, and national identity. In other words, what Sign aims to touch is not just a buzzword, but a complete underlying order of 'who can prove, who will distribute money, who will audit, who will endorse.' This ambition is very large, so much so that my first reaction is not excitement, but vigilance. Because the easiest thing in the market to get people worked up is precisely those words that sound like answers of the times.