Accountable marketed itself into these controversies because they collapsed two completely different things into one, they’ve blurred the lines between “this data is authentic” and “this protocol is solvent”, so I’m not surprised they’re being blamed for a lot of this. They can verify the integrity of what they were shown, but they can’t prove that nothing important was left out or that the reported value can actually be realised, which is what went wrong with Main Street, AlphaPing and now Neutrl. You can’t treat verification as binary because solvency is actually a stack of separate claims, accountable tried to packaged that entire stack into a simple “verified”status. In Neutrl’s case, they verified that offchain records were retrieved without tampering and that Neutrl’s OTC valuation methodology was applied as claimed, but that doesn’t tell you whether every asset and liability was included, whether anyone else had a claim on the assets or whether locked OTC positions could actually be turned into cash at the reported NAV. When you market your verification as “proof of solvency” and say “protocols cannot lie”, you can’t try to hide behind technical scope when your own verification implied something much broader. But even so, it’s always on us as users to make sure we do enough due diligence, there’s a reason DeFi popularised the saying “don’t trust verify” this is just the latest reminder of why that’s so important.