Please take this in the intended spirit--nerdy trivia and a commentary on legal formalities. I'm not trying to flame your reference to signatures or mock China. (I do, however, believe that physical stamps have no place in a modern economy.) BTW, I'm assuming that the stamp issue is real in the ARM situation. I don't know if it is.
Fun facts about the west and stamps: The ancient Romans were big into wax stamps (signet rings) for signatures. In the major common law countries (UK, US), using stamps as signatures ("seals") went out of fashion a couple hundred years ago. The ARM situation (if accurate) is a good example of why: Arbitrary formalities lead to inefficiencies and absurd results.
What about fraud or a lost physical stamp? Say you can't find it. What then? You have to prove your identity to get a new one, like applying for a passport the first time? Or is there no way out until you find your stamp? Can someone steal your stamp or hold it for ransom (which is essentially the situation the upstream poster says is happening at ARM)?
What if a stamp is fraudulently duplicated? Then it becomes like a PIN on a debit card: You argue that someone stole your PIN, but convincing the bank of that is an uphill battle because they will presume that the PIN was unique to you.
There are a few narrow exceptions in modern common law jurisdictions. One is real property, where we have formalities like notarization and recording in public records to prevent fraud and disputes. Jumping through hoops also reminds the transaction participants that they're doing something major--transferring a big asset--and stops, e.g., drunk people from giving away their home with a signature on a napkin before blacking out.
Corporate formalities--such as ARM situation--are important for similar reasons, but using such a truly ancient formality as a stamp is inefficient and creates opportunities for abuse. So I agree with the poster who laughs at the situation. A couple minor corporate hoops are a good thing. An inflexible requirement that you have and use something physical is counterproductive. It's a bad way to run a legal system, and it's ridiculous if you want to participate in a modern global economy.
BTW, the idea that a signature has to be unique is also wrong in modern law, at least in the US and I believe in the UK as well, because too many formalities about signatures create some of the same problems that physical stamps do.
Today in almost all circumstances, what matters is that the signature can be proven to be yours; unique or not doesn't matter. You can sign with an X or anything else. So long as it's written and I have evidence that you wrote it, that's enough. Evidence in this context can mean testifying that I saw you write it. (That's what notaries do, in a semi-regulated formal way; they certify that they witnessed the signature, their certification is documented and tracked, and they can be called to testify if there's a dispute about who actually signed.)
Also evidence: Showing that you habitually sign documents in the same way. And that's why we use unique signatures and why banks demand a copy of your 'official' signature on file: Your past signatures are useful evidence if there's a dispute about whether the signer was really you.
In most contexts, a "signature" today can be an email or just about anything else reasonably identifiable and documented. This is a good thing. Can you imagine having to sign everything in wet-ink and mail it? That would slow down transactions, create opportunities for lost or destroyed paper, etc. (Not quite as bad as finding your special physical stamp, but pretty close.)
