Finally this is your DEFINING product opening the way to ckETH and other chains
“it’s ok it’ll happen in time” when you have the power now - to, at minimum, reach out to other projects like iclighthouse, sonic, infinity swap
To not make this open for everyone and gate access for this “KYT onboarding”
Does dfinity really not see why there’s an outflow from the development and user communities?
It all screams alternate agendas, it’s obvious to see it’s not the best way to approach your DEFINING features launch… It’s already been 2 years, getting it right the first time is so important at this point…
Anyways, I get it. We’ve decided. This is how it is and you’ll all have to swallow this pill, is the message right? There is no space to change this?
If Dfinity thinks this move will make people think ICP ≠ Dfinity, I hope this thread has them rethinking. Not only does it emphasise Dfinity’s control of the IC, it shows a worrying lack of good sense. Absolutely everyone would be more comfortable with Dfinity handling the KYT subscription than handing it out with no discussion and no tender to another centralised organisation. Yes, there will be an NNS vote, but we know Dfinity / ICA will not and cannot be outvoted.
We have waited patiently while the project went over a year beyond its initially estimated timeline, and cheered the brilliant tech underpinning the whole thing. Dfinity had the community’s firm backing in its effort to get it right and not rush.
And now this whole KYT issue which should have been flagged months ago is leading to rushed decisions nobody is comfortable with.
One thing that is getting overlooked is @bob11’s post two weeks ago (ckBTC and KYT Compliance - #24 by bob11). Toniq, on their own accord, put in a lot of time and effort to understand and solve the KYT solution, including retaining legal advice, seeking compliance council and receiving bids from KYT providers. They obviously did this because they have a vested interest in ckBTC with their Ordinals plan. The answer to “why Toniq is first” is simply they put in the work early on. As discussed above, we all (DFINITY and the community) hope Toniq is not the only KYT for ckBTC.
We plan to put together a Twitter Space to discuss the issue, process and solution more. If you are able to attend, would love to get you onstage to discuss with DFINITY R+D more.
To go far, speed is less relevant and direction is more relevant. You can go fast but if you’re headed in the wrong direction then you won’t get to your destination. What I mean is… there is no point moving forward with a single point of failure in KYT having been signaled by other developers. Failure in such course is inevitable and there is strong dependency on the success of KYT canister.
All due respect to Bob and Toniq; they are obviously capable. But doesn’t DF have an active RFP process? I don’t recall seeing any request for KYT proposals on the forum. I admit I could have missed them though.
I’m not quite following… a RFP process is useful when there is a limited supply of contracts for service providers (ie, one contract to be bid on). In this case there is unlimited supply of potential service providers (ie, anyone can become a KYT service provider). How would a RFP work in this situation?
Sorry, I’m not understanding… due process for what? It’s a system that anyone can participate in, so I’m confused how due process or RFPs apply. Not trying to be coy, but just interested in understanding the feedback.
I just reread the first 100 posts to make sure I wasn’t misremembering and from everything I’m seeing Toniq has been working closely with DF for the past few weeks to come up with a KYT solution. DF is also open to the idea of more providers in the future but believe that starting with a sole provider is the preferred option at this time. Toniq will now receive recurring compensation as the sole provider. There also seems to be a KYT canister that was developed at some point and that’s another effort that wasn’t made open for others to contribute.
This is just my current understanding of the events that led us here
We’re rushing it for entrepot to sell ordinals and we’re putting out something that doesn’t have to go out as it is, we can easily just work a month to onboarding a few more providers or at the LEAST just take it on internally in dfinity which would be far more comforting
Why does Dfinity go through Toniq instead of contracting directly with a KYT provider? Is it because you envision multiple providers in the future and thought it would be better for Dfinity not to be involved?
Oh boy, I bet there’s going to be a crap ton of rejections towards the upcoming proposals. Anyway, although I’m a bit skeptical as it seems like it’s introducing a bit of centralization, it’s ultimately still DeFi. Shall be voting to approve when it’s all ready.
Yes, someone else can literally build another ckBTC ledger but everyone is waiting on Dfinity to act. I am in agree with most people wanting to do this KYT thing the right way but it’s also very telling that there are no one willing to take the charge and build a ckBTC alternative with no KYT at all. It’s very easy to complain but hard to build I guess.
Also how about someone else get a chainalysis subscription or any other KYT providers and compete instead of waiting for Dfinity to initiate the whole thing? So far I have only seen theguy asking about how to actually solve the problem. I have reached to chainalysis find out more about the subscription and the price for it. If that’s something individuals can do then I would be interested in providing such service and get compensated for it.
We know what the problem is. Let’s be more solution-minded now.
The obvious solution is wait a bit and get the community involved. I am sure if there are incentives there will be many capable or organizations people to provide such service.
and this is really not ok.