Identity tokens have always been tricky to understand. I remember watching them barely move in price even when integrations were growing. At first it seemed like the market simply did not value identity. Later it felt more like the output was too hard to measure. With SIGN, the focus shifts from owning raw data to owning proof about it. Instead of sharing information directly, participants create attestations, simple claims that can be verified later. A bank, a government office, or a contractor signs something, and that record becomes reusable across systems.
The token seems to live around verification and coordination, not storage. Fees come from creating or validating these proofs. But this activity is not constant. It is event-driven. That creates a challenge for retention. Usage might spike during approvals, then fade away. The question is who keeps paying after the first use. If participation is not recurring, token demand stays thin, especially if supply unlocks continue.
As a trader, I would watch for repeated attestations across workflows and steady fee flow. If usage becomes routine rather than narrative-driven, that is when it starts to matter. Until then, the story feels ahead of the data. Identity may be powerful, but its value will only show when proof becomes a regular part of everyday systems, not just a rare event.