reason being that its not clear if you are confusing the contexts or if the reader is. to the delight of cryptography aficionados who may not like the newer asset-based context, it looks like you did it correctly, but people in the crypto-asset space have abstracted the cryptography aspect so well that they would be confused.
the downside is that you will likely be relegating yourself to just the crypto-asset market, which has its own nuances as well as being a general anathema to some of your potential supporters who just want to ramble incoherently against crypto-assets.
fortunately, in crypto-assets your small project with just a few hundred users will probably make orders of magnitude more money than your big project with hundreds of thousands of users.
could you have just used a database? maaaaybe
could you have just made a lot of money while lowering your overhead costs by offloading your entire backend to the wallet and blockchain? definitely
I feel like i have so many tools for amazing feats of engineering with minimal understanding required (which may not be a good thing lol), but Crypto tools and/or advice always seems to suggest you shouldn't use crypto at all if you don't know what you're doing.
Eg if i write some storage application that fits my needs, and i want to add encryption for the data at rest - i often find the environment (crypto tooling and communities) hostile. Hostile to encrypting something without knowing enough to be competent.
I get why crypto communities/tooling are afraid of informed-idiots (as i self describe), but i view it as a failing of the environment not the informed-idiot.
Do you see your angle on this as something that could lower the barrier to entry for informed idiots just wanting to _use_ crypto? Ie the fact that Crypto Wallets/Coins have standardized and simplified a lot Crypto-related UXs, do you see that impacting common software usecases for encryption / signing?