Clarification: a caching relay is a service that will find notes on other relays and deliver them to the to the user so they don't have to connect to so many 'untrusted' relay.
A DVM would provide the same service as the caching relay but potentially be directed to query a number of untrusted relays to locate the note. 

 Are you saying you want me to address that question in a video?  Or just give my opinion here on nostr?

I think what I call a "client proxy" is a reasonable architectural component that keeps clients from contacting strange untrusted relays, so long as (1) the client can totally trust the client proxy, and (2) you don't care if the client proxy's IP address is leaked.  But it is hard for both of those things to be true.

If only people weren't so embarrassed about losing their bitcoin keys in so many consecutive tragic boating accidents then they wouldn't be so concerned about maintaining their privacy  (I know Edward Snowden says different, I don't really mean what I'm typing, I'm just trying to be funny) 

 Im not sure it is an all or nothing.
I would perfer to share my queries with one 'client proxy' with a good reputation than lots of unknown  relays.
It could be a point of centralisation that can be the target of censorship requests.
So long as its not used relied on for general queries but to find specific events / nip05 validation and clients fall back to using querying the relays, I think it is a great trade-off. 

 A trade off is what it is. You may have to trust a little bit that things aren't getting censored, and that the proxy won't abuse your IP information.  And in return your client can be simpler, maybe doesn't need to open as many connections, and you get a bit better privacy without really doing privacy right.  That works for some people, which is why I think it's a viable idea.  I'm not working on such a thing because it doesn't really work for me, but I'm not against it. 

 This is the beauty of nostr. Lots of clients with different trade-offs.