A meter inside the trust path changes the whole reading for me.
While looking at @SignOfficial ’s cross-chain flow, I stopped caring about the word “bridge” and started caring about the fee path. The request goes through the official schema, pushes data through extraData, hits a schema hook that charges a fee, then Lit does the comparison and Sign writes the delegated attestation. That means cross-chain trust in $SIGN is not only about whether proof can travel. It is also about who can afford to keep using the cleanest route again and again.
That changes the market shape.
The biggest builders will not feel this the same way a smaller team does. If repeated verification becomes normal, well-funded apps can treat that route like standard infrastructure. Smaller builders cannot. For them, every extra verification step is not just elegance or better trust. It is a cost decision. Over time that can split the ecosystem into two groups: teams that can buy the default path to legibility, and teams that stay local because the smooth path is too expensive to make routine.
So my view is simple. A trust bridge can still act like a toll road.
That is why this part of Sign matters to me. Interoperability sounds neutral when people talk about it in the abstract. But once the route has a meter on it, adoption does not spread evenly. It spreads first to the builders with enough margin to keep paying for the clean lane.