Yesterday, an elder came to my house and asked me to help him with his phone, saying it was extremely slow.

When I opened it, I was stunned—the screen was densely packed with various apps: social security, medical insurance, housing fund, utilities, tax, bank... Dozens of them stacked together, almost bursting the memory.
What’s more heartbreaking is that he had notes tucked behind his phone case, with all his account numbers and passwords written on them.
I felt both angry and amused, but the elder was very serious: "I’m old and can’t remember things. If I don’t write them down, I can’t even check my social security."
At that moment, I truly felt that not only Middle Eastern countries need $SIGN a sovereign chain built, but our country also needs one. The Sign on-chain identity can solve many real-world pain points. According to Sign’s logic, various departments can put their credentials on the chain—one-time authorization, one-chain processing—no need for repeated registration, no need to remember a bunch of passwords. An on-chain identity that works domestically and internationally sounds like an ideal country. #Sign地缘政治基建
But upon reflection, I found a problem: why would various departments (such as public security, social security, banks, etc.) be willing to open and share their core data? Data isn’t just information; it’s power.
It’s not that technology can’t achieve interoperability; it’s that interests don’t want to share, and responsibilities dare not be shared.
No matter how secure and controllable Sign’s technology is, it can’t solve the issue of whether departments are willing to share. The vision of moving 300 million people in the Middle East onto a sovereign chain is indeed compelling, but if not enough departments truly connect and coordinate, no one will really use this chain. In the end, it’s just adding another new app on our already crowded phones that no one opens.
Do you agree, @SignOfficial?