It suggests that for verifying ownership of withdrawal addresses, traditional methods such as user verification checkboxes could be more appropriate than demanding cryptographic proof, which is a deviation from practices accepted in traditional finance. This shift from BIP322's envisioned role—facilitating contracts before funds transfer—reflects a broader issue of limited interest in its core utility, despite some adoption for secondary uses like login mechanisms via Bitcoin addresses. The complexities and challenges associated with implementing features like proof-of-funds and proof-of-sender underscore the intricate nature of these demands, pushing towards the need for further development or new proposals to address these gaps effectively.

On the other hand, the narrative shifts focus to the practical challenges faced by a Bitcoin association due to the inability to sign messages with a multi-signature wallet, a limitation encountered in the context of using applications like "Swiss Bitcoin Pay" and Peach. These applications require message signing as a form of "Proof-of-Ownership," a requirement stemming from legal mandates in certain regions. The preference for multi-sig wallets among various entities, aimed at decentralizing treasury operations and enhancing security, is hindered by the stalled progress on BIP322. This bottleneck emphasizes a significant deficiency within the Bitcoin ecosystem, pointing to an urgent need for advancements that enable message signing capabilities with multi-sig wallets. Highlighting this issue is seen as a step toward fostering the necessary improvements to support secure and decentralized financial activities reliant on Bitcoin, demonstrating the evolving landscape of cryptocurrency protocols and their intersect with regulatory and operational requirements.