Most people talk about Sign as if the main question is whether a user can prove something. I think the harder and more important question is who gets to issue the claim in the first place. That may be Sign’s real bottleneck. A credential system does not become infrastructure just because proofs exist. It becomes infrastructure when other systems trust certain issuers enough to act on those proofs.
That matters because verification alone is not the full problem. A wallet can show a credential, but the deeper question is whether the issuer behind that credential is actually credible, accepted, and worth relying on. If ecosystems do not agree on which issuers count, then even clean proofs do not solve much. You just end up with more signed claims competing for attention, while the real trust decision stays unresolved. In that sense, Sign is not only about helping users present evidence. It is also about creating a framework where issued evidence can carry enough authority to be consumed across applications and distribution systems.
That is why I think the real challenge is not user verification by itself. It is issuer credibility becoming structured, reusable, and operational. If Sign helps ecosystems move from “can this be proven?” to “does this issuer actually have the right to define eligibility here?”, then it starts to look much more important. Because bad systems do not fail only when users cannot prove enough. They fail when weak issuers are allowed to define who qualifies.