I used to think disputes always needed a judge somewhere, but @NewtonProtocol challenge system made me question that assumption entirely.
My thesis is simple: correctness here gets proven, not voted on, becuase the entire Rego engine compiles down into a general purpose zkVM like SP1 or RISC0.
Any operator response becomes a claim, and any claim can be re-run independently, so the only thing that actually decides a dispute is whether the proof verifies onchain.
A challenger doesnt need permission or a title, they just need a discrepancy and the willingness to generate the proof themselves
The realistic weaknes for #newt isnt a bad ruling, its the challenge window itself, becuase an attestation stays provisional until that window closes without a successful challenge.
That matters to #Newt too, becuase operators stake capital that gets slashed the moment a proof shows their signed result was wrong.
$NEWT cannot secure a system where being wrong is cheaper than the effort of proving it..
the structural point is simple: no committee decides here, a circuit does...
$NFP $ZBT
My thesis is simple: correctness here gets proven, not voted on, becuase the entire Rego engine compiles down into a general purpose zkVM like SP1 or RISC0.
Any operator response becomes a claim, and any claim can be re-run independently, so the only thing that actually decides a dispute is whether the proof verifies onchain.
A challenger doesnt need permission or a title, they just need a discrepancy and the willingness to generate the proof themselves
The realistic weaknes for #newt isnt a bad ruling, its the challenge window itself, becuase an attestation stays provisional until that window closes without a successful challenge.
That matters to #Newt too, becuase operators stake capital that gets slashed the moment a proof shows their signed result was wrong.
$NEWT cannot secure a system where being wrong is cheaper than the effort of proving it..
the structural point is simple: no committee decides here, a circuit does...
$NFP $ZBT