In some cultures it's common to layer multiple demonstrative acts in order to communicate things we’d like to broadcast about ourselves to those we hope to reach.
The most typical example of this type of layering is when we do something considered to be pro-social—giving to charity, for instance—but then go out of our way to anonymize or conceal that contribution.
Sometimes this act will be precisely what it seems to be: an attempt to give because we believe in the cause, because it makes us feel good to do so, etc; the only intended rewards for our actions are internal ones, or those enjoyed by the recipient.
In other cases, though, we'll anonymize our contributions with the intention of our anonymous generosity being known to certain people: those on the board of the charity, those they tell, and so on.
The implication of giving to charity is one level of this act, and the implication of giving to charity while keeping one’s name anonymous is another.
The idea is that our seeming attempt to self-negate social signals (we conceal the fact that we're doing something pro-social in order to make it appear as if we don't care about the social rewards of doing so) is itself a social signal that’s calibrated to be received by a more specific audience (those in the position to read it).
Many "social paradoxes" that don't seem to make sense in the context of what we know about how people behave and value may actually be an encoded type of communication that relies upon our ability to model the mental states of other human beings and layer our signals accordingly.
We're capable of recognizing that a contribution to charity with our name attached to it could be construed as a negative character indicator (a flagrant attempt to virtue-signal) by some, while concealing that contribution—even if said concealment isn't perfect (and can be expected to fail in semi-predictable ways)—suggests that we were driven by good and noble purposes in donating what we did, rather than being motivated by the desire to peacock our virtuousness.
And importantly, this layered communication carries additional implications even if it’s obvious why we’re doing it: putting in the additional effort to anonymize our charity efforts indicates we’re aware of the implications of not doing so, which in turn communicates something about what we value, who we wish to impress, and so on.
That deeper significance of this type of demonstrative act (which is layered with its seeming opposite) may be why it's often seen as a bit of a power-move to show humility and why deviating from social norms—breaking the rules of the mainstream—often leads to mainstream acceptance and celebration, despite the opposite superficially seeming to make more sense.