Bitcoin Layers Review of ckBTC

[marc0olo]

@domwoe

could use a convention like CAIP-2/10 to specify addresses across chains and even provide the derivation path such that it’s verifiable that the canister indeed controls these addresses.

I will have a look at CAIP-2/10. indeed it should be verifiable through the canister. otherwise there is no evidence that the provided TVL is correct which would make the effort kind of meaningless

@bob11

In fact, this is probably my top number to watch with the Chain Fusion thesis.

same here. for that reason I propose to introduce that

@domwoe

Probably best to start a new post in the forum (and maybe a draft).

no draft yet, but I agree that we should discuss that in a separate post. I created one here:

Standard to expose verifiable TVL of assets secured by ICP (Chain Fusion)

Hi, I am following up here on my original post which you can find here: Bitcoin Layers Review of ckBTC - #13 by marc0olo First I was only thinking about exposing the TVL of BTC secured through ICP via Chain Fusion only, but this discussion should be broader as Chain Fusion can be used to secure different assets across multiple chains. For that reason I think it would be great to define a standard how we can allow developers to let their Canisters verifiably expose the TVL they hold. I am not…