[dragonwriter]

> Docusign is trash-theatre. Its secure because they say so.

Docusign's system is designed very specifically around the legal requirements of the US federal E-Sign Act, which guarantee, for transactions in interstate or foreign commerce, that even if there is a statute, regulation, etc., on its face requiring a written agreement, the electronic signature will be treated as satisfactory.

It did not become popular because it was viewed as particularly secure, it became popular because it was point-by-point checklist following the E-Sign requirements, and there are lots of entities who wanted to legal guarantees that come with complying with E-Sign.

> Remember in Scotland, verbal contracts are binding with no need to witness. Bizarre!

For most matters (there are some matters that legally--either by common law or statute--require a written contract) verbal contracts are binding without a need to witness in most common law jurisdictions (including the US); written and signed contracts are important even then because they provide evidence of both the content and the fact of the agreement, even when they are not required for a binding agreement to exist. Proving the existence and terms of an unwritten, unwitnessed contract when you want to take action over a breach by your counterparty can be tricky.