February 24, 2026

Edition #42: Should E-Signatures & SaaS Divorce in 2026? Maplewave Says Yes

Maplewave’s CEO, Adam Baggs, explains why now is the perfect time to go all in on unlimited licenses.

What’s changed in the world that made you rethink how Maplewave approaches the e-signature and Digital Transaction Management market?

We revisited our pricing and packaging because e-signature, as a feature, has become a commodity rather than a specialty. Most buyers have used multiple tools by now, and they generally view them as equally trusted and legally valid - whether the solution is built in-house or delivered by a third party.

When customers see little meaningful difference from vendor to vendor, the model of consumption has to evolve. That includes how the product is priced and packaged - and also how and where data is stored.

How is Maplewave changing its packaging and pricing?

Most e-signature vendors package their offerings as SaaS (Software as a Service). Plans typically cap things like seats, users, signatures, and storage duration. Once you exceed those limits, overage fees kick in - so costs can escalate quickly, effectively rewarding you with a “success tax”. For large enterprises, that can mean hundreds of thousands (and sometimes millions) of dollars annually in recurring SaaS fees.

For enterprise customers, we’re taking a different approach: an unlimited license model. That means you don’t have to manage seats, signatures, or user counts. Customers pay once, and as usage grows, their long-term value grows with it.

At the enterprise level, we’ll deploy in the way that makes the most sense for the customer - including on-premises if that’s the right fit. We’re also comfortable putting data storage control in our customers’ hands. We don’t see value in charging extra for storage or activity, so customers can manage retention according to their needs. We can absolutely help with best practices - what to archive, purge, or move to cold storage - but the access, cost model, and decisions remain yours.

Is SaaS the wrong model for e-signature today?

SaaS isn’t “wrong,” but it often doesn’t match how businesses use e-signatures and digital documents today.

I sometimes compare it to the old photocopier model. Instead of buying the machine, you were given one, and then charged per copy. Over time, people realized it was better to own the copier so they could print, store, and copy as much as they needed without watching a meter run.

For many large organizations, e-signature has reached that same point: ownership with unlimited usage is often more practical than a pay-per-use structure.

How does an unlimited perpetual license change the internal conversation for CIOs and CFOs who are planning for 5–10 years of growth?

The logic is straightforward: the more you use it, the more you save. Your investment improves over time.

With SaaS, the opposite is true. That can work in certain cases, but many organizations now want e-signatures to be a foundational capability, not a line item that grows every time adoption improves.

From a CIO/CTO perspective, this matters because cost ceilings can quietly become the constraint that prevents teams from using the product as intended. A perpetual license removes that friction and lets the business scale without worrying that success will trigger a bigger bill.

Who is the unlimited model the best fit for?

It won’t be for everyone, and that’s fine. Some organizations prefer SaaS because it’s cleanly categorized as OpEx, and they’re comfortable with the tradeoff that higher adoption can lead to higher costs.

But if you’re an organization that values long-term savings, expects usage to grow, and wants increased adoption to translate into increased ROI (not increased fees), the perpetual model is a strong fit. It’s also a good fit for teams that care about ownership and flexibility, especially around storage and deployment options.

What else convinced you on-premises and private/sovereign cloud deployments models are the best way forward?

At a macro level, the geopolitical environment has made data access and data control a bigger board-level issue. Organizations increasingly want clarity on who can access their data, and under which jurisdiction.

A few years ago, having a local cloud node often satisfied sovereignty requirements. Today, customers are asking deeper questions: Who operates the cloud? Who administers the infrastructure? What legal frameworks apply?

Data sovereignty is important for many industries, but what about telco contracts? For any single mobile contract, the security risk can appear relatively low compared to other document types. But telcos operate at enormous volume. If you have 4 million subscribers, that’s a massive amount of collective customer data. In today’s environment, it’s reasonable to ask hard questions about who can access that information and where it resides.

For software vendors - including us - the answer is deployment flexibility. You may need to support cloud-agnostic approaches, major global clouds, regional clouds, or on-prem deployments into a customer-owned facility. You have to be able to meet customers where they are, because data sovereignty is too important to offer only one option.

Is Maplewave ahead of the curve on this?

Yes, I believe we are. The market is changing, and software companies will have to adapt.

If e-signature is a commodity, then you’ll see large incumbents start adding non-essential services in an attempt to protect their recurring revenue. This isn’t necessary.

Because of these reasons, we see the unlimited model as a new way to deliver value.

At minimum, it creates a meaningful pricing and packaging alternative. But we believe it’s bigger than that - and a significant opportunity for customers who want flexibility, ownership, and predictable economics.