Is $SIGN building a real economy or just another token layer?

It's a fair question. The crypto ecosystem has generated a plethora of protocols that appeared to be infrastructure at first glance, but instead proved to be token mechanics covered with a whitepaper around it. So when the Sign identifies itself as worldwide infrastructure in validating credentials and distributing tokens, the natural reaction is - demonstrate.

The argument that Sign is something real commences with what is already there. TokenTable has also issued more than 40 million tokens amounting to over 4 billion to 40 million users. That is not something on the agenda of a roadmap, it is already accomplished. EthSign has been used to process binding on-chain identity-related digital agreements on more than one chain. These aren't demos. They are products that are used and they are older than the hype on $SIGN as a tradable product.

The more profound one is structural. Sign is not attempting to develop a single application - it is laying tracks that other products run on. Omni-chain attestation, such that the credential issued on Ethereum can be read and trusted on Solana or TON without having to rebuild the verification logic from scratch on each occasion. Such interoperability is truly difficult to achieve, and most projects do not make the effort since there is no token story about it being quick.

$SIGN comes in in the form of connective tissue. It frameworks developers, institutions and end users on a common protocol instead of a common speculative bet. Such a difference is more than it seems.

The adoption will determine whether Sign should be the digital trust standard or the next layer that everyone has forgotten about, namely, whether enterprises and governments will be based on it. However, it does not start with theory. The economy is already partially in operation. That's more than most can say.

@SignOfficial #SignDigitalSovereignInfra