I keep circling back to one thing with $SIGN. Not the transaction itself, but what happens after the transaction is long gone.
Most chains reward speed or volume. You do the thing, pay the fee, and the network moves on. But with attestations, the real weight isn't in the moment of creation. It's in the moment of reuse.
That’s where my doubt sits though.
We’ve all seen projects where the mechanism is elegant, but user behavior stays shallow. People mint an attestation because it’s cheap or novel, then it sits in a wallet like an old receipt. No second look. No third-party query. Without repeated verification requests, the token only gets touched once per proof. That’s not sustainable demand — that’s just a database with extra steps.
So I’m watching for one signal: recurrence.
Are these proofs being pulled back into workflows? Do apps or auditors or counterparties actually call on them again weeks later? Because if the answer is yes, then the token starts to look like infrastructure — a toll booth for trust that gets crossed many times. If the answer is no, then it’s just a footprint in the snow.
Also can’t ignore the supply question. If new attestations mint faster than old ones get verified, dilution wins. And if verification gas gets too heavy, people will just… not check.
From a trading view, I’d rather see a flat or slowing mint rate with rising verification rate, than explosive minting and silence after.
That spread — creation vs. re-creation — is where the real story lives.
#sign #signdigitalsovereigninfra @SignOfficial
