Sign
SIGN
Evaluation Score
Overall rating on a scale of 0-10
Dimension Breakdown
AI Analysis
Comprehensive evaluation of the token
The synthesis for SIGN (Sign) is constrained by severe data gaps across five of the six evaluated dimensions. Active Development, Community Support, Market and Use Case, Team and Governance, and Security and Audit History all returned insufficient verifiable data (-1.0) primarily due to extensive name collisions in search records with unrelated non-crypto entities. The only scorable section is Tokenomics (4.5/10), which reflects a total supply of 10.00B tokens with significant dilution risk from locked insider and team allocations (22.5%), unverified unlock schedules, and a lack of clear usage-linked demand sinks or burn mechanisms for its omni-chain attestation utility. No qualifying red-flag events, security breaches, or fraud mechanics were affirmatively established for the protocol itself.
Development Activity
Code updates and developer engagement
Community Support
Social media presence and community engagement
Tokenomics
Supply, distribution, and utility
Market & Use Case
Value proposition and competitive landscape
Team & Governance
Team background and project governance
Security & Audits
Security history and audit status
About Sign (SIGN)
Sign (SIGN) is the native utility token of the Sign protocol, designed for omni-chain attestation infrastructure. Issued as an ERC-20 token, SIGN is deployed across multiple blockchain networks, including Ethereum, Base, and BNB Smart Chain, utilizing the same contract address across these supported environments.
The token has a maximum supply capped at 10.00 billion units. According to published allocation frameworks, 30% of the supply is designated for Community Rewards and Future Airdrops, 22.5% is allocated to Team and Shareholders, 18% is reserved for the Treasury, and 12.8% is allocated to a Community Airdrop. The token model does not include documented burn or buyback mechanisms, and it lacks structural, usage-linked demand sinks.
Evaluation of the project reveals several structural risks and significant data limitations. The distribution profile presents potential dilution risk stemming from the substantial insider allocation and unverified token unlock schedules. Furthermore, available records provide no confirmed third-party smart contract audits, and verified data regarding active development, team identity, and formal governance structures remains constrained.