I translated the developer documentation and test network contracts of Sign for @SignOfficial myself and found a very hidden problem: the generation logic of the ZK proof has redundancy, leading to high verification costs remaining over time, which is completely inconsistent with the low-cost promise of the white paper.
I conducted 10 standard identity verifications, and the computational load for generating ZK proofs each time was between 1.8 to 2.1 million gas, which translates to a single cost of about $0.45, three times more expensive than ordinary on-chain verification.
I compared the code and found that $SIGN added a lot of redundant verification logic in the proof circuit to comply with different countries' regulatory requirements. Although it improved adaptability, it significantly increased computational costs.
The white paper states that "the cost of a single verification is less than $0.1", which is simply impossible to achieve under the current architecture.
Xin Yan mentioned in a recent developer meeting that "we will continue to optimize circuit design", but in the last month of GitHub submissions, only once was about simplifying the ZK circuit, and the progress is very slow.
More critically, high costs will directly affect commercialization. Governments and enterprises are extremely sensitive to verification costs. If the costs cannot be lowered, it will be very difficult to scale even if it is implemented.
I feel that the team has not found a balance between "compatibility" and "low cost", excessively pursuing adaptability at the expense of economic viability.
I am now monitoring two signals: one is whether the gas consumption of ZK proofs can be reduced to below 1 million, and the other is whether the official will announce a specific roadmap for cost optimization. $BTC
A technical solution without economic viability is difficult to scale even if compliant.
