3 ms·

Totally fair question! SaySigned isn't meant to replace your existing e-signature tool for human signing workflows. It's built for a different use case entirely

• verdverm 9mo ago
  1. It's not clear this is even legal in the first place 2. Who's reviewing the contract at 2am to make sure it's not going to cause the company harm? 3. When will existing providers like DocuSign or Google Workspace have both options for me? Generally, why two tools that do one thing instead of one tool that does both things? 4. Why not use computer-use in the meantime?
  • dklvs 9mo ago
    Great questions — these are exactly the right things to push on. 1. It's actually clearer than you'd think. UETA Section 14 (from 1999, adopted in 49 states) explicitly says: a contract can be formed by the interaction of electronic agents even if no individual was aware of or reviewed the actions. The ESIGN Act says the same — electronic signatures are valid as long as they're "legally attributable to the person to be bound." The legal principle isn't new: the human or org who authorizes the agent is liable, just like traditional agency law. We maintain a full attribution chain — principal → agent registration → scoped authorization → action → cryptographic audit trail — so there's always an unbroken link back to who's responsible. 2. This is a product design question, not a platform limitation. SaySigned doesn't remove human oversight — it gives you the infrastructure to define exactly how much oversight you want. Humans create the contract templates upfront — the exact terms, clauses, and conditions they want. The agent doesn't improvise contracts, it executes from pre-approved templates the human defined. On top of that, you can scope an agent's authority to only sign contracts under $X, only with pre-approved counterparties, only for specific document types. The 2am scenario isn't "no one is watching" — it's "the human wrote the contract template, set the guardrails at 2pm, and the agent operates within them." Same way you'd give a procurement team a spending policy and approved vendor list rather than approving every PO yourself. 3. DocuSign and Google Workspace are built around a human-in-the-loop UX: email a link, open in browser, click to sign. Their entire architecture assumes a human at a screen. MCP (Model Context Protocol) is a fundamentally different interface — agents discover signing capabilities as native tools, no browser automation needed. And here's the thing about Google Workspace specifically: if you're using Gemini inside Workspace, Gemini could connect to SaySigned's MCP server and use it as a signing tool directly. We're not competing with Google — we're the signing layer their AI agent would use. Could DocuSign build this? Sure, eventually. But retrofitting agent-native workflows onto a human-first architecture is a very different challenge than building for it from day one. Same reason Figma didn't come from Adobe. 4. Computer-use (browser automation) is the worst of both worlds for this. It's slow, brittle (UI changes break it), expensive per transaction, and gives you zero cryptographic proof of what happened. If your agent clicks through DocuSign via browser automation, you get a screenshot-level audit trail at best. With MCP, you get a PAdES-signed PDF with an embedded RFC 3161 timestamp, a cryptographic hash chain in the audit log, and a green checkmark in Adobe Reader. One is a hack, the other is infrastructure.
    • verdverm 9mo ago
      you are... 0. sounding like another dumb bot (and deflecting from hard questions that get at your underlying assumptions!) 1. not listening, just trying to push your ideas 2. wrong about many things and seem to lack the ability to imagine Google Workspace offering the exact feature you are trying to pitch The reality is that humans are not going away from the loop and that people are not going to buy two solutions when one already does both. In the meantime, the bots can make the post and the humans can click the button. It doesn't need to happen at 3am, it can wait until the morning. Best not to invent problem, go ask people what problems they actually have --- and then things like this happen to invalidate more of your proclamations ("computer use bad", it's more flexible and always improving): https://venturebeat.com/infrastructure/google-chrome-ships-webmcp-in-early-preview-turning-every-website-into-a https://venturebeat.com/infrastructure/google-chrome-ships-w... > we're the signing layer their AI agent would use Google doesn't need to buy this, they have more than enough expertise to build it when there is enough demand I believe the fundamental flaw a lot of people have is that Ai need to have special tools. I want them to use the same tools I do (1) less maintenance / costs (2) same knowledge base and workflows (3) they are already good at this and getting better each release Imagine how many fewer tools and SaaS I need with agents