Hey @mr-unomi - appreciate the willingness to modify the original proposal. I think that change will go a long way with the DAO, and as such feel a lot more comfortable supporting the proposal.
Also, thank you for the additional context on the grant situation.
We believe in the importance of zero-knowledge proof in preserving privacy. The zkFetch implementation could be a promising implementation for Arbitrum.
However, we want to question whether going through DAO funding is the best way to bring this proposal forward. For instance, will the 10k budget a month post-development be enough to ensure the strategic development of zkFetch within Arbitrum? Or will it just be basically maintanance costs?
We believe it is important to ensure the solutionās long-term sustainability and strategic development beyond maintenance.
Furthermore, this proposal also inherently ties up the technology to the provider mentioned, while we would rather frame this development as an open-source public good for the ecosystem.
Have you approached any project on Arbitrum that could be interested in moving forward to an MVP?
For this reason, we invite you to reflect on the proper way to present this solution, which could perhaps be reframed differently.
We are not sure if itās appropriate or feasible for the DAO to finance this kind of proposal at this time. There should be a committee to evaluate it and ensure that what the author is sharing is true and accurate. Please donāt take this as disbelief, we personally think this is a very well-written proposal, and the product youāre developing is very appealing. However, we think you should wait until a program to fund these kinds of projects opens again.
Thank you for the proposal. We recognise the benefits of zkTLS-powered oracle in improving security and agree this service would be a valuable addition to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Can you provide a comparison table or brief explanation of your positioning vs your competitors?
In essence, the goal is to understand why your solution is different and better. We believe this would be useful information for delegates when considering giving you a grant.
Hey @karpatkey, Thank you for your question about zkFetchās positioning compared to other oracle solutions.
To illustrate zkFetchās positioning, hereās a comparison table highlighting key features against major competitors:
| Feature | zkFetch (Our Solution) | Chainlink (zkTLS in development) | Pyth | UMA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| zkTLS Implementation |  Production-ready |
 In development |
 Not using zkTLS |
Not using zkTLS |
| Market Adoption (zkTLS) | 30+ projects, 5+ prediction markets |
Not yet available |
N/A | N/A |
| Cryptographic Verification | Zero-Knowledge Proofs (~4 sec proof generation time) |
Planned (zkTLS version) |
Different approach |
Different approach |
| Privacy Preservation | High |
Expected high (zkTLS version) |
Limited |
Limited |
| Data Source Flexibility | Any HTTPS endpoint & Public data |
Wide range (current version) |
Wide range |
Limited |
| Cross-Chain Compatibility | High |
High |
High |
Moderate |
| Custom Data Processing | Advanced |
Limited (current version) |
Limited |
Flexible (Optimistic Oracle) |
| Decentralization | In Progress |
High |
High |
High |
| VRF (Verifiable Randomness) | In Development |
Available |
Not Available |
Not Available |
| Cost Efficiency | High |
Moderate |
High |
Can be high |
| Developer Integration Ease | High |
High |
High |
Moderate |
While we are making progress toward full decentralization, which will be achieved soon, our core technology already offers unique advantages in data integrity, privacy, and flexibility.
We aim to integrate zkFetch to enable trending use cases such as prediction markets to access over 100 data feeds on Arbitrum, providing seamless integration and enhanced functionality.
Hello! Thanks for your proposal and the additional info provided in your answers! I would like to add a few more:
Thanks in advance!
thank you for the comparison table @mr-unomi - itās indeed very useful.
A follow-up question: can you expand on your market adoption?
Thank you for your proposal regarding this excellent new technology. We agree that enabling use cases such as prediction markets, tokenization of real-world assets (RWA), and AI applications is crucial for future developments!
We have a few questions weād like to ask.
First, while the Motivation section explains the specific logic behind why Arbitrum should support this technology, we didnāt understand whether this technology is truly necessary. Specifically, why Arbitrum? Is the value provided by this technology addressing issues within Arbitrum? If these issues arenāt currently being recognized, could you share your thoughts on why that might be?
Next, weād like to ask about the economic incentives for Arbitrum to adopt this technology. While we believe it could lead to market share expansion and new use cases, we didnāt grasp how it would accrue value back to ecosystem. Could you explain how this technology would be utilized and share your vision for how incorporating this technology would contribute to Arbitrumās growth?
How will zkFetch synergize or complement existing prophecy machine services such as Chainlink?
With the introduction of zkFetch, is there a compatibility plan in place to allow for a smooth transition for DApps currently using other prophecy machine services?
What is the exact implementation of the revenue share model?
How to efficiently track and settle data fetches between Arbitrum DAO and zkFetch and guarantee transparency of the split?
It is suggested to add some concrete use cases to the proposal to show how zkFetch operates in scenarios such as prediction markets, RWA tokenization, etc., which will help DAO members understand its application value more intuitively.
There is also a need for community education and developer support.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We appreciate the proposal submission by @mr-unomi & by CreatorOS team. Madhavan Malolan has dedicatedly helped shape the industry with strong academic records & team, we would like to acknowledge that as well.
We have a few questions while reading through the proposals -
Is there an economic security considered for providing accurate real-world data? What happens when the data provided is inaccurate? As we read further about Reclaim Protocol, this accuracy is heavily dependent on the attestor network.
The above statement seems correct, but is it possible to estimate the current size of the market that requires sensitive data? Obviously not considering the new opportunities here.
What does this mean? Reclaim Protocol on Arbitrum already has a zkTLS Infrastructure? If zkFetch will leverage it, what is the core difference? And what is the hero product that this infra was used by on any of the 30+ chains?
Got some clarity on it by reading the Key Terms.
It is delightful to see a Revenue-Sharing Model with the DAO, and we are supportive of such approaches for the different types of grants that the DAO provides. But how difficult will it be to keep the accounting?
We want to highlight that there are many technical terms & understanding that this proposal demands and having a Developer Advisory Board type of set up to provide their recommendations on such a proposal could help in evaluating the proposal better for delegates.
The cost of the proposal isnāt high when compared with the potential marketing advantage that Arbitrum can have, but as this solution will not be exclusive this will be short-lived.
Also, wonder why can this not be passed under New Protocols of Questbook program?