[rubyfan]

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. That there is money to be made on industry solutions is not in dispute.

The point in dispute is that decentralized blockchain based solution makes any sense. Other than to attract VCs who don’t know any better to give you capital, blockchain offers no competitive advantage to an upstart or really a competitive threat to the incumbents.

Further I see no desirable “differentiation” for a customer to be interested. It doesn’t in fact even solve a customer problem. It’s just noise.

[wallacoloo]

> Further I see no desirable “differentiation” for a customer to be interested. It doesn’t in fact even solve a customer problem.

document signing is just another form of attestation (“i agree to the terms outlined in this document, effective on <date of signing>”. blockchains are really good at providing tools for attestation. the specific customer advantage? it’s extremely difficult for your counterparty to claim that he didn’t sign your term sheet if he changes his mind. you just point to some record on the blockchain and say “this has your digital signature on it. it says you agreed to those terms, and it was published at <date/time>”.

obviously, DocuSign solves this problem of attestation, by custodianing the documents and putting meaningful reputation on the line in order to remain trustworthy. OTOH, it’s not unheard of to see for-profit companies cash out their reputation (e.g. big brands which sell the brand/logo to cheap manufacturers once the company stops innovating). attestations on a large blockchain (like Bitcoin or Ethereum) augment that reputational cost with a financial cost: even if Docusign decided to cash out their reputation, it would cost billions of dollars to reverse the attestation: a significant barrier.

so it depends on how much you — or the parties you deal with (ex: courts) — trust Docusign. it’s not inconceivable to me that at least a handful of customers might say “i don’t completely trust that any document middleman will not lie about my counterparty’s attestation down the road. but i do trust that blockchain B is secure enough to prevent reversals, so this blockchain-based document signing service might be a better product for me.”

[rubyfan]

You suggest Docusign could compromise their core business and therefore the customer problem is lack of trust in Docusign?

So how big is such a market of potential customers that don’t trust Docusign to not tamper with the attestation? I’d hypothesize the potential customer segment is very small.

Big companies that need Docusign have incentive enough to get it right and typically have rigorous standards to making decisions like this. If lack of trust were an issue with customers, Docusign will have solved that issue already. Trust is not likely an issue for customers.

For choosing a Docusign over a Hellosign, price at scale however is an issue. If blockchain solved the cost at scale issue then you’d be on to something but I don’t think it does. Other tech solutions like S3 or R2 probably have a more material impact on a real customer problem like cost at scale than blockchain could hope to. Though I’d guess the cost Docusign and others charge has little to do with underlying data storage or infrastructure costs.

[wallacoloo]

> So how big is such a market of potential customers that don’t trust Docusign to not tamper with the attestation? I’d hypothesize the potential customer segment is very small.

This is sort of my point. This market probably exists, and it's almost certainly too small at the moment for Docusign/Hellosign/etc to consider going after. Which means any nimble startup that wants to can claim that market without much competition. That forms your core set of users, who are sticky to your service, and from whom you can fund development into adjacent markets (e.g. any attestations which are currently secured only by reputation. there's a fair amount of that in the auto industry, in housing/property, and in supply chain management, at the least).

I'm not saying that of all the business opportunities around, this is the best one. But it is a business opportunity, in an environment where most other investment opportunities are heavily oversubscribed.

> I always go back to, who’s going to invest in actually building the new blockchain solution and for what reason?

This was the original line I was responding to. Have we settled it? VCs would be one group to invest, and for the reason that there's an underserved market that no one else appears interested in serving and with the possibility to expand from there. Apparently, neighbor poster has actually already invested in this. So that seems pretty cut and dried to me.

[rubyfan]

Um no. I didn’t say “no one.” I said who and for what reason.

In my opinion, some rando startup deciding to do it (no offense to @knurled99); or a hypothetical rando VC deciding to back it still doesn’t make it a real threat to the sector.

It’s real if it changes the game and takes meaningful market share - not just a proof of concept or boutique outfit catering to the blockchain echo chamber.

This type of blockchain hype is the original point of my comment, implementations of blockchain for X absolutely exist and there’s plenty of examples. That was never in question. My point was to turn and run because the motive for using blockchain is hype or bullshit like many AI/ML, big data, no code/low code outfits tend to be. Sell you on new tech everyone seems infatuated with but don’t understand.

To the original point of debate…

> Someone is going to roll a decentralized ID system on blockchain and tank this whole sector...

There are a whole lot of things that could disrupt the document signing industry but blockchain on its own isn’t the thing. Again, who and for what reason matter a lot more than whether they use blockchain or traditional cryptographic hashing and S3.

[umanwizard]

> it’s extremely difficult for your counterparty to claim that he didn’t sign your term sheet if he changes his mind. you just point to some record on the blockchain and say “this has your digital signature on it. it says you agreed to those terms, and it was published at <date/time>”.

Private keys can be compromised, just like a hypothetical DocuSign user’s e-mail account. A blockchain attestation just proves the terms were agreed to by someone with access to a particular private key, not who that person is or whether they had the legal right to do so.

[knurled99]

So my friend and I have actually built a blockchain-based esignature app recently, because there are a couple advantages of using blockchain.

One is privacy - you don’t actually have to share the document being signed with our application; we never store it and never have access to it. This is because what is actually signed and stored in the blockchain is a hash based on your document. So if there’s anything sensitive in a doc that you’re signing, there’s no risk of a hacker getting into our app and leaking that to the world.

Another advantage is that it gives you a publicly accessible way of proving that a digital file existed in a given state on a given day and time - anyone with the document can later go back and validate that the copy they have is the one that existed on that date and time. The value add of the blockchain is that this information is publicly available on a distributed network that uses encryption and requires agreement among the nodes in the network, so it is functionally impossible to go back and tamper with it later.

Couple other advantages, but they aren’t necessarily differentiated by virtue of the app being on blockchain - one is speed and ease of use, because there’s no uploading or recreating digital signatures. You just identify a document to sign, ensure both parties have possession of and wish to sign the same thing, and click to sign. The other is the ability to quickly and easily use our simple REST API to add this kind of e-signature and document verification capability into your own app. This is especially useful for anyone who’d like to memorialize some information in the blockchain but doesn’t want to deal with figuring out how to do that directly.

Edited to add the name of the app - Indestamp.com

[rubyfan]

Congrats on making something - I wish you luck.

I don’t think blockchain adds anything novel to the functionality you describe. The ability to get a cryptographic hash of a document has existed for a very long time. As have signature files that can be published publicly. As has archive.org. I don’t believe the blockchain adds anything here other than maybe longevity and I’m dubious of even that.

FYI - when I click ‘Get started’ nothing happens.

[knurled99]

Ah yes, thanks for pointing that out… this is so new that while the app is working great the website is not fully functional yet. There was a working version on the lab version of our site; we just pushed a change to the main site so the button works now. It just takes you to a sign up form.

All valid points about hashes being nothing new, etc. We used blockchain because it was a means to accomplish what we feel is a better way of digitally signing documents. We think there’s value in signing docs on the blockchain and that there’s a need for an easy way to do so, largely among people who are doing other things within blockchain.

We are not claiming there’s no other way to skin that cat. I understand why you might run the other way if someone’s claiming their app is great because blockchain. But I also don’t think it’s true that any app that uses blockchain technology adds no value because you could’ve used another technology or simply because blockchain.

[rubyfan]

Fair enough, I wish you luck.