There is a recurring feeling that I find hard to shake off every time the market talks about "infrastructure"; it often starts from the assumption that we need another blockchain. A little faster, a little cheaper, a little more modular, but the old problem still remains.
This issue is not new. Discrete identity, unverifiable data, systems communicating with each other based on assumed trust, and when everything starts to scale, those "assumptions" become breaking points. Not major faults, but just small frictions repeating long enough to become a problem.
Blockchain systems try to solve this by adding more layers, more consensus, more things "on chain". It seems reasonable but sometimes it can be overkill. Not everything needs to become a chain.
SIGN, at least from what I've observed, does not seem to be trying to become another blockchain. It resembles a verification layer more, a place to bind data rather than storing everything. It's not competing with chains but standing between them.
That sounds simple, but it's the part I always come back to: does the market really need another confirmation layer, or is it just repackaging trust, another confirmation layer... does it really reduce the trust needed, or just shift it somewhere else?
I'm not sure, and I don't have the answer yet. Perhaps we have to wait until there's clearer usage. Whitepapers are always neat, narratives are always smooth, but usage is what truly matters.
This is something I am still monitoring.