Hi @Avsa, a few comments:
On the other hand I know, use and know lots of people who use Safe. That already tells me something about the maturity of both codebases.
The infrastructure comparison that is being voted on is “Safe + Zodiac” with “Safe + Enzyme”. Safe + Enzyme has a much more battle tested history than Safe + Zodiac when it comes to trustless asset management. Safe on its own is just a wallet like metamask and does not solve the problem of trustless asset management.
Additionally, and thanks to the graph protocol underpinning our data pipelines, it is easy to automate + query reports at any point and time in history with Enzyme.
I’ve heard about Melon port from the old days, but never personally used and don’t know anyone who uses it so I have no experience.
Two of the largest insurance protocols use Enzyme to manage their assets trustlessly:
- Nexus mutual with > 15000 ETH
- Unslashed finance with > 17000 ETH
We’ve provided these and more references to the stewards.
That already tells me something about the maturity of both codebases.
Again, I’d like to see you comparing like for like here (Zodiac’s trustless asset management contracts,with Enzyme’s).
- Audit report history here.
- The Enzyme Council is composed of smart contract auditors. Happy to connect you with any of the auditors or council members if you would like to dig deeper into anything technical.