Cicp is only as secure as the decentralization of ntn.
At any point in time 3 wallets can completely change how cicp works.
Ntn gains the most out of other people’s funds by buying nodes and buying/burning their own token.
There should be a goal to decentralize the ntn dao for each milestone of stake added to the 8yr neuron.
As it gets larger the risk grows all while making decentralization more difficult for ntn do the the money being fed from the neuron to buying and burning ntn tokens.
@infu has been clear that ntn governs the protocol.
That means ntn has the ability to pass a proposal to change everything about cicp with out the users of cicp having any say over their portion of the 8yr neuron.
I’m addressing a flaw in the governance.
They could have easily created this as a stand alone protocol that allowed cicp holders govern their protocol. Then it all matters who has the most “skin in the game”
As well as it would make node ownership much more clear as the people funding the purchase would own them and not a dao owned by 3 wallets.
Thanks cat. Hopefully the flaws in the design of cicp governance and control get resolved.
Alex has laid out some other areas of concern hopefully those get addressed too.
It misses the issue of ntn being able to change the whole structure of cicp with out any say from the people with “skin in the game” as well as ntn can intervene if they don’t like the vote pattern of cicp users.
There is no answer there cat.
Like I said cicp users should be the ones who govern their protocol.
Not ntn where it’s extremely centralized and will be able to interfere if they don’t like the results of cicp voters.
(post deleted by author)
To be clear you are a dev for ntn. So your interests seems to be skewed.
As well I don’t compare wtn to cicp unless anvil brings it up.
The flaws in the governance of cicp are real and being ignored by the devs such as yourself.
No cat. You sit here calling me a paid shill while ignoring you recently got hired by this dao.
You tend to ignore my concerns and just larp on codebase discussions and hide the fact that 90% vp of ntn dao is held in 5 wallets.
Any time I bring up governance you default to “bribed shill, code is open source, or we should bribe you.”
How about we try and actually address the questions and stop trying to point the conversation to other areas.
Cicp can only be as secure and decentralized as the dao controlling the canisters (no matter how the code is structured.) at the end of the day the entire code can change in one vote.
If ntn becomes more decentralized then it’s not an issue. Until then everyone who uses cicp is hoping three wallets don’t take their money and run. Even worse they are buying 3 wallets nodes to which the people funding the operation have no claim to. This ends up just giving 3 people a massive 8yr neuron, nodes, and a more centralized dao.
I’ll say it again.
Cicp holders should govern the cicp protocol. They are the ones with their skin in the game.
Decentralisation is a process.
We started out with three wallets having a majority, and our aim is to create a staked liquidity token that benefits the network as a whole.
You started out with three people and have moved tokens around to hide your true intents. Your aim is to extract as much value for yourselves at the expense of the network.
Time will tell 
Ntn only needs you and anvil to make changes.
I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say “ You started out with three people and have moved tokens around to hide your true intents. Your aim is to extract as much value for yourselves at the expense of the network”
Seems off topic and irrelevant to cicp.
Good thing those 2 people are one of the largest 8 year stakers who is obviously invested in ICP for the long haul and believes in the protocol, and the other has open sourced a huge ammount of code benefitting the entire community.
No one with a shred of dignity would doubt either @borovan or @infu intentions benefitting the protocol as a whole. You would have to do insane mental gymnastics to argue otherwise. Or be paid i guess…
Infu claimed to have a way to solve all issues he saw with the liquid staking system.
So far he only repackaged it in a worse way for stakers to benefit ntn dao.
You can choose to trust Adam and infu just like you can choose to trust devs who worked at the Dfinity foundation before launching their project.
Either way I was hoping infu found a way to improve liquid staking and not just repackage things he felt were issues in the first place.
I don’t think anyone made any claim that this is “perfect” in every way. I still have reservations about liquid staking in general.
I have reservations in general about ICP business models that primary source of revenue is having a big 8 year neuron. That, in general doesn’t seem to be a long term sustainable strategy in the absence of other models which light ICP on fire in mass quantities. I think we can all agree on that.
The question is, if liquid staking is necessary, what is the “best/most fair” way to do it?
WTN/nICP is one solution.
NTN/cICP is another solution.
We can sit around theory crafting which is better. Or You could build a model and try to “prove” which is better.
But in reality only time will tell. Let’s battle test both, competition will make both products better.
Best time to bring up and fix issues is the beginning of the project.
Cicp suffers the same issues that anvil had with wtn. It’s not possible to say ntn isn’t a threat to the protocol, it’s not possible to say retail is funding ntn nodes.
Cicp users should have a say in the future of the project they are funding and they should own the nodes they are buying for the project.( not the 2 people who own ntn.)
They can… by buying NTN. Just like nICP holders can buy WTN… right? Anyone can buy NTN, anyone can buy WTN… the question is only which one you prefer. I know which one im buying 
Wtn users had a clear chance to fund the nicp protocol.
Ntn launched this under a 90% vp controlled sns. Big difference there.
This is the way.
If it wasn’t for my SNS contribution there would be no NTN, and the token hasn’t really had a purpose until now. I’m not selling, so the fact a few people control it can’t be that much of a surprise.
I mean, we don’t lie to people - that’s one benefit of us over WaterNeuron.
