A couple of days ago, I was modifying a set of small rules for on-chain reputation ratings. I initially intended to just fine-tune some parameters, but the more I changed, the more chaotic it became. At first, looking at holding time, veteran players naturally crushed it, and newcomers had no chance; then I switched to activity level, and again it was ruined by accounts that were inflating data; adding weights for on-chain behavior, some still felt it was unfair. The most chaotic moment was when I combined three sets of rules together, and the ratings were completely messed up, with worthless accounts ranking at the top, while real players were pushed down. At that moment, I understood that the problem was not how many rules there were, but who defined the standards.
This process also made me re-understand Sign. @SignOfficial does not establish a unified standard, but rather breaks "qualifications" into combinable on-chain proofs. It is not the platform that determines your eligibility, but the on-chain records that piece together why you are eligible. I have also stumbled when combining things myself; I casually pieced together a set of conditions, and the result completely deviated, making it difficult to identify the problem. It wasn't a logical error; it was just too complex after layering, making it hard for people to comprehend visually.
This brings up a real issue: if the cost of transparency is so complex that ordinary people cannot understand it, does that kind of transparency still hold meaning? What complicates matters further is that when qualifications can be stitched together through proofs, there will always be someone better at "navigating rule combinations" rather than adhering to the rules themselves. Another detail: once these proofs are updated, the old state may continue to be effective elsewhere—what you thought was changed might still be "valid" in other applications.
So I am currently feeling particularly conflicted. On one hand, Sign has indeed dismantled the platform's black box, and rules are no longer dictated by a few people; but on the other hand, it has hidden the complexity in a deeper place. I keep thinking: if in the future on-chain reputation, qualifications, and distributions really become a bunch of proofs "splicing results", which would you be more willing to accept—rules that are visible but complex, or simple rules but you never know where they came from?