Catching up on the thread’s more recent turn (the contested-state and profile-composition discussion) – on the “prove-every-advance versus materialize-once” question specifically: I’d lean toward prove-every-advance, and the reasoning maps directly onto something we’ve hit repeatedly building WYRIWE’s recompute chain. Materialize-once collapses history into a single derived state you attest to – cheap, but it means a challenger can only check the endpoint, not the path. If an intermediate advance was invalid but later advances happen to land back on a “plausible” state, that’s invisible after collapse. Prove-every-advance keeps every step independently checkable, which is the same property our L4 judgment-attestation section leans on (a verdict has to be checkable against the specific input/output pair it was issued for, not just a final rolled-up claim). The cost tradeoff is real, but for a system whose whole point is bounded/revocable authority, I’d want the audit trail to survive an adversarial intermediate step, not just agree at the finish line. Happy to sketch what a minimal per-advance commitment would look like if useful.
| # | Наименование новости | Тональность | Информативность | Дата публикации |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ERC-8337: Agent Memory State | 0 | 7.65 | 26-07-2026 |
| 2 | ERC-8004: Trustless Agents | 0 | 8.54 | 27-07-2026 |
| 3 | Proposing a family of candidate ERC interfaces for titled asset infrastructure — architecture review | 0 | 7.85 | 27-07-2026 |
| 4 | ERC-8348: Financial Lease | 0 | 8.24 | 28-07-2026 |
| 5 | ERC-8183: Agentic Commerce | 0 | 5.48 | 28-07-2026 |
| 6 | ERC-8307: Smart Contract Emergency State | 0 | 7.86 | 28-07-2026 |
| 7 | ERC-TBA: Prediction Market CTF Wrapper | 0 | 11.4 | 27-07-2026 |
| 8 | ERC-8004: Trustless Agents | 0 | 7.44 | 26-07-2026 |
| 9 | EIP Editing Office Hour (EIP + ERC ) Meeting #108, July 28, 2026 | 0 | 18.32 | 27-07-2026 |
| 10 | ERC-8006: Universal Policy Engine (programmable compliance) | 0 | 11.91 | 27-07-2026 |