Yeah no, forget choosing toniq, choosing anyone is a single point of failure
We LITERALLY have a DAO to make choices(NNS), wouldn’t consider Dfinity giving out roles at its will is a DAO or decentralised…
Also Trust is literally what Web 3 aims to remove, so “Yeah we trust em” seems a terrible reasoning to allow a weak model to go through
As to the views on ICP NFT market, irrelavent - Replace “Toniq” with “XXX” and all the same questions remain.
This is the equivalent of а state auction in a corrupt country. The difference is: auctions in corrupt countries (for road renovations for example) have multiple candidates and at least appear to be fair at first glance (on second - the winner is always predetermined). Here there’s not even an illusion of fairness.
Why isn’t there a chance for someone else to also propose a solution? Why is Toniq so special and why isn’t there public discussion on how they got preferential treatment?
Of course if you have a concrete good idea or action, I am all for it, and it seems that you already have some good ideas.
I think a DAO is something that anyone can take action on, and I think that would get us closest to the goal of decentralization.
Because Toniq is DFINITY’s poster boy and shell company at the same time.
this is business and dfinity is a Businessman
Of course if you have a concrete good idea or action, I am all for it, and it seems that you already have some good ideas.
That is not the point. This thread was created 3 weeks ago for the community to discuss. Jan didn’t mention that Toniq is their first and only choice. We just had a few weeks of “discussions” and Jan comes in and states what Dfinity had planned all along as the way forwards.
And I’m sure Toniq already have an ample head start for something probably no developer, outside of insiders, had an idea was being worked on (KYT).
Toniq was incubated in ICPMN, the same cartel that has majority of influence on the NNS and eco because DFINITY lent it.
Seems we’re already communicating that it will be released this week
So I assume this is finalised already?
My understanding is that these KYT providers will not accept ICP as payment from a DAO. They need a centralized entity to be the counterparty to pay in fiat for their KYT services.
As a result, one or more entities need to contract with one or more KYT entities (Toniq → Chainalysis being one example).
The choice at this moment in time is wait until Dfinity creates a decentralized architecture for this or just roll it out now with Toniq and over the next couple months come up with a better decentralized architecture.
Given we are in the middle of a bear market and need to kickstart defi, I really don’t see the massive downside in getting going and decentralizing in extremely short order.
Surely the bear market is a good reason to postpone since its not really going to get much use anyways?
There hasnt been a single person who hasnt been shocked when I’ve put this in front of them and there’s good reason why - It goes against all that ICP stands for and pretty much everything dfinity preaches day by day (not to mention Dominic is out there fighting other chains over their practices which puts ICP in a position of proving higher standards)
If this is the direction we take, Ill be campaigning publically for awareness since this is how it usually goes:
“Yeah well need to work on that”
“Yeah sorry we don’t have the resources”
“Oops we should have fixed this when we could”
I don’t know which BTC whale is willing to enter with all of the above mentioned issues
Not to mention, this wasnt really discussed at all till now…
"Oh btw… " <— Seems a huge oversight?
All in all, there is just so much obviously wrong with this - and needless to say, this will be reputation impacting
decentralized
So we’re just giving up wholesale on this one?
This is called “money laundering”. I don’t think it’s what ICP or Dfinity want to be famous for.
Wait a minute? Did I miss the bidding stage for being a KYT provider? I’m really interested in having the power to hold the whole ckBTC ecosystem to ransom. Bills need paid! 
Seriously though - we shouldn’t be rushing into this. We only get one chance to make the right impression. If your loyal followers are picking ckBTC to bits then imagine what the rest of the crypto ecosystem would say. Justin Bons is warming up his keyboard for round 2 as we speak!
Personally I trust the guys over at Toniq… but it’s a big ask for the whole crypto ecosystem to trust them. Yes they couldn’t steal the BTC… but they could stop at any time, rate limit or just mess about. The don’t even need to… the fact that they ‘COULD’ is enough that no big money will trust ckBTC (IMHO).
There is NO RUSH… how many times did ETH devs kick ETH2 down the road. Let’s get it right - we’re still fighting the FUD from genesis. Let’s not make something that we have to ‘explain’ for the next 2 years !
I don’t mind the oversight… issues pop up which for whatever reason were not spotted. I do however have an issue with sticking a plaster on it and hoping for the best. What is the point of having the biggest and best team of cryptographers if we choose to implement a trust based system. Especially given how much Dom has been banging on about bridges on other chains… You better believe they are lining up to pick ckBTC to bits!
It’s a tough issue to fix. I think we have to have some kind of KYT… otherwise ICP will become money laundering wet-dream. It sounds like Dfinity have already made their choice. I hope they listen to the community. We’re on their side… and we’re not saying great things already!
That’s great! I look forward to more people proposing to take this role. As Jan said, we hope to get to a place where we have multiple such providers instead of just one. Do you have any concrete entities that you think would be willing to participate?
I see where you’re coming from, but otoh, doesn’t it also make sense if more and more things are done by other entities than DFINITY? We should get out of a situation where people say ICP = DFINITY.
The NNS does control the canisters. The NNS cannot directly have a subscription with a company like chainalysis.
Then the ckBTC minter can be upgraded via an NNS proposal. You said above that you can essentially guarantee that others in the ecosystem would also be willing to run this service, so then this shouldn’t be a problem.
For now, the KYT canister works with the chainalysis API. It’s very easy to have another principal insert an API key, so if toniq goes away but someone else is willing to insert a chainalysis API key, it’s a super simple proposal that can immediately be submitted. Hopefully in the near future there are canisters that can support other KYT APIs.
If the ckBTC minter uses a KYT canister which has no API key, then no conversions can happen. But this is up to the NNS: anybody can propose eg to remove the KYT canister, or to change the principal that can insert API keys.
We plan to submit a proposal to upgrade the ckBTC minter.
I think this may be a misunderstanding. Toniq’s API key would be used for all ckBTC <> BTC conversions, this is not a toniq product. So i think it’s only fair that they would get compensated per request.
This is just to not have to postpone opening up minting any longer. As Jan wrote in his post, if the first proposal passes, we plan to submit another one where we use KYT for ckBTC → BTC as well.
Yeah I think something like that would be great. In my opinion, the approach with having a single KYT provider using a license provided by Toniq is just a starting point such that we can finally enable the BTC → ckBTC conversion. It would be great to have more people provide API keys and for multiple different providers. Some concerns though: these subscriptions require upfront payment for a number of screenings, and the cost per screening is significantly higher if you buy a smaller amount of screenings. So there is a clear price overhead if many entities would buy small licenses. It would be much nicer if these companies were to offer on-chain services directly, but unfortunately that is not possible today.
Actually, this entire situation baffles me.
Like, how the hell did the entire big-brain collective at Dfinity miss the flashing neon pink elephant in the room?
Blacklisted bitcoin has existed for a few years…
What gives?
What’s the steps for projects to onboard their subscription?
Note that the KYT canister can still be transparent, i.e., you can verify the source code and see the API calls it makes to chainalysis.
I’m not sure what you mean by “head start” but ckBTC has always been open source and the interfaces don’t change. All the KYT stuff should be invisible to the users or developers building against ckBTC.
Exactly.
We are saying when we launch, we are ok with a single point of failure and a dependancy in a third party (outside of the kyc provider) till hopefully more onboard - how we’re yet to know, Toniq will just be implemented by default then a proposal to “handover” happens
This is what I’m getting and it’s incredibly disappointing.
This is fully against the ethos of web 3, decentralisation and common resilience practices.
There is no way around this and I very much don’t expect Dfinity to use ckBTC as “free of third party” as a marketing ploy to trick people and I’ll be calling it out as I see it
DEFI is uninsured financial product and to put something out with the foundations name attached is obvious single points of failure so we can “catch the ordinal” crazy is irresponsible at best and once again outs Dfinitys reputation for a quick buck