Then that makes the situation worse, not better.
You are not a Catalyst milestone reviewer, but you are a top developer and a constitutional committee member. You publicly carry authority and influence in this ecosystem. When you make claims of fraud, timing and credibility matter.
You only reviewed the code after a public dispute over unpaid services and after they made claims that challenged your narrative on the timeline. Days later, fraud is suddenly discovered. That sequence matters whether you like it or not.
Saying you would never have reviewed the submissions unless they made an “unbelievable claim” is not a defense. It confirms that oversight in this ecosystem is reactive, selective, and driven by reputational conflict rather than principle.
If fraud can exist unnoticed until it becomes politically useful or personally motivating to uncover, then the system does not have safeguards. It has coincidence-based enforcement.
It is an indictment of incentives, authority signaling, and how power actually operates here.
How would you expect me to have know about this? Do you think I have time to review the proof of achievement GitHub for every catalyst proposal in existence?
The only reason I learned about this is because they made a grand claim that ZkFold “has delivered” a ton of high impact zero knowledge technology.
This claim was incredibly suspicious, so I reviewed the code and found fraud.
If they had not made such an unbelievable claim I never would have bothered to review their submissions.