@SignOfficial Something in Sign Protocol's design keeps pulling me back to a question I do not usually ask about blockchain infrastructure.
What happens to a verified fact after verification ends.
Most systems verify something. The check passes. The result stays inside that system. The next system that needs the same fact runs its own check. Not because it wants to. Because there is no shared format for the result to travel in.
Sign Protocol is trying to change that at the infrastructure level.
Not with a universal database. With a standardized attestation format — schema, issuer binding, revocation status, proof semantics — so that a verified fact holds its shape as it moves between systems.
EthSign proved this was possible for document signatures. TokenTable proved it was possible for distribution evidence. SignPass is proving it for reusable identity.
The same design logic runs through all three.
Encode the statement. Bind it to an issuer. Make it verifiable later.
That last part is the part I keep coming back to. Not verifiable now. Verifiable later. Across systems. Across chains. Across time.
That is not a feature. That is a different philosophy about what verified facts should be able to do once the moment of verification passes.