Skip to content
← LandscapeSector

Verification & Trust.

The trust layer for machine intelligence — proving an AI did what it claims, on-chain, without revealing the model.

Tracked 03Conviction 02Watching 01Skeptical 00

Thesis

Why this sector, why now.

As agents transact and models earn on their own, the unanswered question is verification: did the inference actually run, on the model claimed, producing the output that got paid for? zkML, optimistic ML, and proof-of-inference turn "trust me" into "verify me." This is the bucket where Lookout's CertiK relationship is a genuine edge — auditing and proof systems are adjacent disciplines, and no neutral platform covers verifiable AI with audit-grade credibility. The fork: do proofs live at the model layer (zkML — EZKL, Modulus, Giza) or the coprocessor layer around it (Lagrange, Space and Time)? My read: zkML is still too expensive for large models, so near-term value accrues to optimistic and coprocessor approaches; zkML wins later as proving costs fall.

Signals I track

What would move my read.

  1. 01

    Proving cost per inference vs model size (the zkML scaling wall)

  2. 02

    Real protocols consuming proofs in production, not benchmarks

  3. 03

    Whether audit / insurance products attach to proof layers (the CertiK-adjacent wedge)

Kill shot

What would kill the thesis

Trusted execution environments (Intel SGX, Nvidia confidential compute) get cheap and 'good enough' for verifiable inference, and the market never pays the premium for cryptographic proofs.

Coverage

Projects on the radar.

Going deeper

Bespoke Verification & Trust dive for your fund.

Brief me

Draft thesis · editorial voice in progress, edits land continuously