1) The list of projects that may be directly adopted include Gitcoin, ZigZag (ZZ), HOP, and SAFE. The suggestion on this point is that boutique accounts should only work on large projects that have issued coins to avoid such problems.
2) Because zksync lite has fewer functions at the beginning, and even only has a single function of transfer in the early days, so I think that the witches about lite transfers will be lightly checked or not checked, and it is more likely to directly follow ZZ’s witch list. If zigzag has a secondary function for lite. airdrop, then it is more likely that zksync will directly use ZZ’s witch list on its lite network, or use it as the basis.
Personally, I think the reasons for using ZZ directly are:
(1) Like arb, which only checks witches on the one network and will not check the nova network. I think era is the focus of the witch review on the project side. People who care about hair should segregate funds on the era network.
(2) The snapshot time of ZZ’s witch list is close to the official launch time of zksync ERA mainnet (about three months)
(3) ZZ not only checks L2 behavior, but also checks L1+L2 behavior
3) If zkSync launches multi-chain Witch review, it should only check the main network or check the on-chain data available in Gitcoin.
4) If the widespread rumors in the community about the cooperation between zkSync and Gitcoin are true, you can try the @TrustaLabs tool that won the first place in the Gitcoin Hackathon to test the risk of your own address witch. However, this tool currently only supports ETH and ARB network queries.
