I didn't expect it to have an impact on the level of coordination, but it actually does.
Most systems assume that an agreement means complete finality. You sign something, it gets stored, and everyone moves on. But in reality, agreements evolve. Roles change, access permissions shift, and what was valid yesterday may become invalid today.
The Sign system does not treat statements as static records, but as living signals. Something you can verify again, not just store. This difference may seem simple, but it changes the way everything around it is designed.
You stop thinking in terms of snapshots and start thinking in terms of states.
I saw a team using it to manage shareholder permissions. Instead of granting permanent roles, they issued statements tied to activity. If you are active, your permissions remain valid. And if you are not active, your permissions are automatically revoked. No need for manual cleanup, no complex deletions.
This is not just verification, it is behavior.
However, many reduce the Sign system to just a logging layer. Just a place to put proofs and forget about them. This is an underestimation of its significance.
This is closer to programmable trust.
But it also raises more complex questions.
If certificates are evolvable, who determines their validity?
And if trust becomes standardized, what happens when these standards conflict?