Show HN: We are building the next DocuSign

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Product concept & confusion

  • Core idea described by the team: upload an existing signed PDF, detect and strip variable fields, turn it into a reusable template, and auto-fill repeated info from prior documents.
  • Many commenters say this sounds like “smart mail merge” rather than “the next DocuSign,” and struggle to see the relation between the marketing claims and what the product actually does.
  • Target market is unclear; several note that most companies only manage a handful of templates and manual tagging is not a real pain point.

Comparison to DocuSign and existing tools

  • Commenters question why this should replace DocuSign/Dropbox Sign/GrabSign, which already handle signatures and templating.
  • Some note open source alternatives (DocuSeal, OpenSign) and that many SaaS tools (Google Workspace, Box) now bundle e-signatures.
  • One perspective: DocuSign’s real value is workflows, APIs, and legal/regulatory alignment, not the act of signing itself.

Legal, compliance, and trust concerns

  • Multiple people say the main buying criteria is legal protection and trust, not UX.
  • Concerns raised: eIDAS compliance (for EU), HIPAA, CFR Part 11, GDPR, data transfers, and the lack of a robust privacy posture for document contents (not just account data).
  • Some argue a service that auto-fills or “advises” on forms cannot be a neutral third party like a notary.
  • Others emphasize that DocuSign has case law and E‑Sign Act alignment; a new entrant must overcome serious trust and brand hurdles.

AI features and skepticism

  • Features like AI auto-fill, explanation, and a “voice agent” are met with skepticism:
    • Worries about unqualified legal advice and liability if AI misrepresents terms.
    • Fears that sensitive contracts will be used as training data.
    • Some dismiss the AI layer as a trivial RAG add‑on mainly useful for pitching VCs.

Branding, naming, and perceived legitimacy

  • The “sgnly” name is widely criticized: hard to pronounce, looks like a typo, and is perceived as phishing‑like or unprofessional for B2B.
  • The missing “i,” broken social links, and a generic AI-generated landing (gpt-engineer / Lovable artifacts) reduce trust.

Landing page, UX, and technical issues

  • Many users report a blank page, often tied to ad blockers or specific browsers.
  • Messaging is seen as confusing and inconsistent (signing vs. templating vs. “5x faster AI workflows”).
  • Requests for clear security information, stronger legal/ToS/Privacy detail, working links, and more emphasis on who is behind the company.