I used to think @SignOfficial was just another dev tool. After testing it, I don’t see it that way anymore.
I built a simple flow: circom circuit for “age >18 + residency,” proof generated offchain, then a verifier contract hooked into a Sign schema. If the proof passed, the attestation got issued. Clean separation, ZK handles privacy, Sign handles coordination.
What worked? No raw identity data touched the chain. The schema became the rulebook. Anyone using it follows the same logic.
What didn’t? Proving time and UX. On a mid range device, it’s not instant. That’s a ZK bottleneck, but users won’t care where the delay comes from.
Then it hit me this is bigger than a demo.
I kept thinking about how this plugs into subsidy systems in places like Indonesia. Today, eligibility checks are fragmented. With this model, a government defines one schema, and banks, telcos, or local agencies plug in as issuers. Funds only move if proofs pass.
Compare that to Aadhaar. One centralized database, massive breach risk. Here, data stays offchain, and verification becomes portable.
It’s not plug and play yet. Coordination between agencies is the real challenge.
But from what I’ve seen, this is starting to look less like crypto infrastructure and more like national infrastructure.