When I researched SIGN, I noticed one important detail, they do not attempt to "overthrow" existing state identification systems. They propose to create a trust infrastructure that would allow different institutions to interact with each other without a "big brother" in the form of a single database.
When I analyze the concept of Sign, I increasingly understand the importance of transparency of the powers of issuers, and no, it is not an anonymous "black box". Every institution issuing confirmations has clear, publicly documented powers. And this is correct, in my opinion.
When I think about the default privacy provided by Sign, I ultimately become convinced that this is what I like most about their work. The verifier receives a fact, not your files. For example, if the service needs to know whether you have enough money for a subscription, it receives a "yes/no" answer, not a full bank statement.
The more I reflect on their document verification system, the more I realize that it is adapted to real conditions, which is important, as digital identity is not a static picture; it is constantly changing.
The architecture allows seeing the "chain of evidence" for verifying the legality of the operation, but it does not collect data about each step of the user.
The essence of the SIGN approach is to encode the rules of the game directly into the architecture. Here, both public registries and private companies can exist in parallel. But the "layer of trust" ensures that the exchange is made only with necessary evidence, not with all personal life! Access to data becomes a result of conscious choice, not a technical gap.
#SignDigitalSovereignInfra $SIGN 👌#TetherAudit #Creatorpad #BitcoinPrices
