They should sign an ethereum address to reduce ambiguity
(Any crypto asset address is fine, even PGP is good enough for this but PGP had 25 years to make that user friendly and common but failed, and cryptocurrencies made signing software more prevalent and uniform wayyyyy faster)
Remember when satellite.earth "pioneered" this idea for their platform? (not ragging on them but some of the content posted on there were insightful and unique)
You can literally generate any public key / address hash that conforms with a blockchain and sign it and anyone can verify that you therefore control it
This has zero crypto assets involved and has no trail of assets so what are you talking about? If anyone sends funds to the address hash the owners can just tornado.cash it and withdraw it somewhere else with an instruction sent over the relay with no prior link to the funds or address. Its perfect right now. But what do you perceive?
^I'm responding to this
_If_.
I am still openly questioning the nature of blockchain and open ledgers: trivial associations with transaction activity and address history can be had or via more complex analysis with clustering, modeling, etc (ie: Chainalysis). I used to think that a simple signature confirmation claiming "this is my email address" would be okay for solicited communications but what would happen if the channel used becomes adversarial?
Apologies but I'm failing at framing my own argument here as I'm confusing the intersection and implications of the current "NFT art" craze that's been happening. For example, some Tezos-based art projects are in reality minting your signature on the blockchain with an asset they host on an external source, eg: ipfs. You own the signature but do you really want to publicly "own" something controversial and perhaps illegal within your country's jurisdiction?