The waterfall of "best practices" for DeFi protocols' Proof-of-Reserve and solvency transparency: 1. disclose all addresses/wallets/positions publicly -> fully verifiable (but usually not feasible for various reasons) 2. disclose to certain systems / data verification networks (e.g. @AccountableData), which can provide the ability to verify the data independently via zkproofs (PoR, solvency, delta-neutrality, etc) -> trustless solution for onchain verifiable data (trusting the code + scope completeness) 3. disclose to oracle networks, which can provide the ability to verify that sourced data was not tampered (i.e. as received by the oracle) -> trust-minimized solution (trusting the oracle network) 4. disclose to third-party "auditors" who can post periodical attestations (usually in the form of PDFs) -> no real-time tracking 5. self-report attestations -> least trust improvement since you trust the same party 6. don't disclose anything -> full trust The above is mostly for onchain balance sheets (tokenized delta-neutral strategies and similar yield-bearing stables, custodians, etc). Offchain assets & RWAs (stablecoins, MMFs, ETFs, CLOs, funds) obviously don't have (1) as an option, while the ladder becomes less vertical as (2), (3) & (4) are similar as the trust in offchain data sources remains, so: (2) ZK systems → privacy + formal claims over trusted documents (3) oracle networks → integrity + decentralization of reporting (4) auditors → legal + accounting enforcement

arguably (4) can be preferable compared to (3) depending on how the attestations are structured