A signature isn’t the cost. What it reveals is the holder’s preference, and the cost appears when reality moves against that preference.

Imagine two candidates , A supports light bulbs, B supports candles. A light-bulb manufacturer holds a meaningful amount of Bitcoin. If they sign a message supporting A, the signature itself carries no cost. The real cost is that their savings are now exposed to the future they’re signaling for.

If the world shifts in a direction that harms their industry, their Bitcoin position could be pressured into selling, or lose purchasing power in ways they cannot ignore.

And depending on how widely Bitcoin is held across the population, this kind of signal may influence voters to very different degrees.