Sgnly is building an open-source, self-hostable e-signature platform designed to be a cost-effective alternative to services like DocuSign. It prioritizes privacy and security by allowing users to control their data and integrates seamlessly with existing workflows. The platform is built with a modern tech stack, aiming for a smooth and intuitive user experience comparable to commercial offerings, but with the added flexibility and control of open-source software.
Sgnly.com positions itself as a forthcoming competitor to DocuSign, aiming to revolutionize the electronic signature landscape. The company emphasizes a focus on user experience and developer-centric design, contrasting what they perceive as DocuSign's complex and unwieldy interface and API. They promise an exceptionally intuitive and streamlined signing process for end-users, reducing the friction often associated with electronic document execution.
For developers integrating Sgnly into their applications, the platform boasts a clean, well-documented, and straightforward API. This purportedly allows for seamless integration with minimal coding effort compared to other e-signature solutions, ultimately accelerating development timelines and minimizing maintenance burdens. This developer-friendly approach underscores Sgnly's strategic intent to become the preferred e-signature solution for businesses of all sizes, from small startups to large enterprises.
Furthermore, Sgnly emphasizes its commitment to security and compliance, ensuring the integrity and legality of signed documents. While specific details about their security measures are not explicitly outlined on the landing page, the implied message is one of robust protection for user data and signed agreements.
The company highlights an upcoming private beta program, encouraging interested parties to register for early access. This suggests that the platform is still under development but progressing towards a public launch. By gathering early adopters and incorporating their feedback, Sgnly aims to refine its offering and ensure a polished product upon release. The overall message conveys a sense of innovation and disruption, aiming to simplify and improve the e-signature experience for both users and developers alike. They present themselves as a modern alternative to existing solutions, poised to reshape the future of digital document signing.
Summary of Comments ( 24 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43498031
Hacker News users discussed the practicality and necessity of another e-signature solution, questioning Sgnly's differentiation from established players like DocuSign, HelloSign, and PandaDoc. Several commenters pointed out the maturity of the existing market and the difficulty of competing with entrenched incumbents. Concerns were raised about Sgnly's pricing model, particularly its free tier limitations, with some suggesting it felt more like a lead generation tactic for paid features. Others questioned the stated focus on legal documents, given the broad applicability of e-signatures. Overall, the sentiment was skeptical, with commenters urging the Sgnly creators to demonstrate a clear competitive advantage beyond minor UI/UX differences.
The Hacker News post "We are building the next DocuSign" sparked a discussion with several comments, mostly focusing on the challenges faced by the new entrant, Sgnly, and skepticism about its differentiation from established players like DocuSign.
Several commenters questioned the viability of competing with DocuSign, given its market dominance and network effects. One user highlighted the difficulty of displacing an incumbent, particularly when the incumbent offers a good enough solution. They used the analogy of trying to replace email, emphasizing the entrenched nature of such tools. Another commenter echoed this sentiment, pointing out the significant hurdles Sgnly faces in terms of market penetration and user acquisition. They questioned the value proposition, asking what Sgnly offers that DocuSign doesn't already provide.
Some users pointed out potential niches Sgnly could exploit. One suggestion was to focus on specific industries or verticals with unique regulatory requirements or workflows, where a more specialized solution might be appealing. Another commenter mentioned the possibility of undercutting DocuSign on price, though they acknowledged the difficulty of sustaining this strategy in the long run.
Specific features of Sgnly were also discussed. One commenter praised the clean UI/UX showcased on the website, but cautioned that a visually appealing interface doesn't guarantee success. Another user expressed interest in the claimed ease of integration, but questioned how it truly differed from DocuSign's existing integration capabilities.
The thread also touched on open-source alternatives and the potential for a decentralized approach to digital signatures. While acknowledging the theoretical benefits, commenters noted the practical challenges of adoption and achieving widespread acceptance for such solutions.
Several commenters inquired about specific features or functionalities, such as support for different signature types, audit trails, and compliance with various regulations. These questions remained largely unanswered by the Sgnly representative.
Overall, the sentiment in the comments was cautiously skeptical. While acknowledging the potential for innovation in the digital signature space, most commenters expressed doubts about Sgnly's ability to effectively challenge DocuSign's dominance without a clear and compelling differentiation strategy.