What changed my mind on projects like this was realizing that the internet is still strangely bad at handling eligibility.
People usually talk about identity first. Who are you. Where are you from. Can you prove it. But that is only part of the problem. The harder question is what follows from that proof. Who qualifies for access. Who can receive funds. Who should be excluded. Who carries the responsibility when that decision is wrong. Once money, credentials, and compliance start crossing platforms and borders, the gaps in the system become obvious very quickly.
Most of the current internet handles this in pieces. One platform confirms the account. Another processes the payment. Another checks legal requirements. Another keeps the record for later. That separation sounds manageable until scale arrives. Then every handoff creates cost, delay, and uncertainty. Builders end up stitching together trust with temporary fixes. Users keep proving the same things again. Institutions move carefully because the cost of distributing value incorrectly is often higher than the cost of doing nothing.
That is why @SignOfficial feels more interesting to me as infrastructure than as a product story. It is trying to sit in the uncomfortable middle where verification has to become usable, portable, and legible enough for real systems to depend on.
That kind of system would matter most to organizations moving value under rules, not slogans. It works if it reduces repeated trust work. It fails if it adds another dependency people are forced to trust without real recourse.
