I think anyone can become a KYT propagator like Toniq, or create a ckBTC canister without KYT. I would support such an action. It is easy to cry centralization for actions we don’t agree with, but if someone doesn’t take action, there will be a long way to decentralization.
2 Likes
Yeah i mean the action dfinity first needs to do is put out the costs + make the knowledge available, make people AWARE that KYT canister has been in the works all this time, maybe being up that there’ll be a single provider more than 5 days before the final release…
It’s not like anyone had the luxury of going - ok I won’t be a KYT provider
Also the fees and costs are very much not revealed
We just need to trust rn it’s fine.
This.
Neither this design structure nor Toniq Reasoning nor Dfinitys reasoning makes sense
Yesterday, dfinity AND Kyle, our local astrologers deal was “they get to go first cause they deserve it”
Today we’re told there’s no money in it but no idea of costs or fees and Toniq is still a business
“it’s ok if KYT goes down, not a big deal” when there are many scenarios where it is and it’s not a decision to be made by Bob…
Any service, especially your crowning achievement, requires resilience?
All just mad to me
1 Like
There are a number of prominent opinions that raise the issue of tonic’s profitability (over and above the issue of single points of failure), but I personally don’t see a problem with it. I think it’s great that there are users who decide that it’s good for business and join a provider, and I think that the creation of such followers from the community will be a solid tolerance to keep CKBTC going for a long time.
(ICP is waiting for support from good CO founders)
That’s a very reasonable ask. I agree. Dfinity should make the costs transparent so folks can verify.
Toniq is incentivized to do this so it can launch its ordinals marketplace. It’s decided to bear the cost to benefit everyone so they can beat OpenSea or whoever else is out there in the non IC ecosystem that’s working on ordinals. It’s not charity, but it’s also a benefit we all get. It would be like a whale deciding to spend personal money on marketing to lift the price of ICP.
I’m not sure what you mean by “they get to go first”. Toniq is not uniquely benefitting from this. I’m sure they would prefer someone else to cough up.
3 Likes
Well it’s only raised because we’re told it’s not profitable and yesterday told “they get to be first because of their hard work”
What is the costs and what fees do they get?
Doesn’t the NNS deserve this transparency?
1 Like
Yeah don’t ask me, these are Kyle’s words
Also the whole web 3 ideology is, verify, don’t trust - so I’d like this model.made transparent as I have no reason to trust a single entity
1 Like
I feel like the root cause of the angst against Toniq is the fear that Dfinity is showing favoritism by enabling a single entity to benefit from being a KYT provider.
Bob has told us this is not true. Dfinity has told us this is not true. I believe them both. So let’s just ask Dfinity to provide a way for folks to verify that fact.
In the future, as I mentioned I actually think folks NEED to benefit from performing KYT otherwise no one will do it (or they’ll hold their breath and hope someone else does it).
1 Like
The root cause is, dfinity is releasing ckBTC, the thing that’s supposed to eliminate 3rd party dependancy
And starting off by just giving it to a third party whom everyone needs to trust to ensure minting is up - is insane
Bad design - is insane
Also “I trust them cause they said” ← this in itself is insane, all of this can be verified and always should be verified, the whole idea of decentralised cloud is to remove single points of failure and we’re adding one to BTC, an investment vehicle
^ none of that is unreasonable and they’re real problems with how this is done and not “I think”
We can’t dismiss this as “yeah people just don’t want to see favouritism” since there’s been no due process and a lot was done behind the scenes.
2 Likes
I understand your frustration with leaving it to Toniq and I’m sure there are other ideas.
I suppose someone could name another provider or build a canister without KYT (I believe the foundation responded that way if I am not mistaken).
Such actions lead to decentralization and anyone can act like that in Web3.
The single point of failure would be the current situation where there is no one but Toniq to take such actions.
In case anyone is wondering why this guy is kissing ass here, it’s because he’s the “manager” of ICPMN Neurons
@Manu have you heard of “Credible Neutrality”?
Do they not teach ethics with cryptography?
2 Likes
I would disagree that in order to ship ckBTC it first needs to be perfect. If the IC had to be perfect before it launched, it actually would still be in R&D stages and still wouldn’t have launched. For example, the boundary nodes are still controlled by Dfinity and many aspects of decentralization are still in process.
I would say don’t let perfection be the enemy of good enough. I prefer speed at this moment in time provided security of funds is not compromised.
A valid question is what’s the worst that can happen under the current design? I think the worst case scenario is that Toniq prevents minting additional ckBTC and then the NNS revokes its minting ability.
I’m honestly really not too sure what you are so worried about. Soon the big brains at Dfinity will develop a more decentralized design.
With regard to trust, I already said I agree with you. We shouldn’t have to trust Toniq isn’t making money here and Dfinity should make that all transparent.
2 Likes
No we assume that
No one really knows this is even a possibility
Genesis literally mentioned before he’s interested and none of the other builders even know about this
Let’s not evangalize Toniq for doing something no one was even made aware of.
That would be the first step - delay, transparency and awareness to bring forward anyone else who might be interested
2 Likes
I don’t see how basic resilience is “Perfect”
We literally just need to add a few more providers or atleast make dfinity the main provider for optics since dfinity has to be trusted anyways
There should be no real work in asking a few more people to see if they’re interested in being a KYT subscriber and add them
It’s not exactly perfection David… It’s a basic necessity for good tech and to be frank I don’t see why we even need all this back and forth to do something so basic
-Delay
-reach out to the community
I can even help gather the interested parties if dfinity just shares the cost and the earnings
Also let’s assume Toniq really isn’t making money
Then this model is flawed, we would always be dependant in Toniq since no one will want to onboard?
Man… The issues just keep popping up, who designed this KYT, it’s amess
You are free to wait for a detailed response from Toniq. But is this “validation” necessary to take action? I think it is possible for some CO Founder, for example, whether for charity or business, to claim to be a transparent KYT provider instead of a centralized Toniq.
I don’t know what this means. There is 0 information to take action if anyone wanted to.
I’m personally taking action though, on the community awareness front since dfinity decided to do it all under Wraps
Either way I think the current response is the best we can do at this time to move forward with implementation. I don’t think ridiculing it as centralized without contributing to decentralization is an alternative, but the only other alternative at this point would be to leave the CKBTC functionality blank until the Good founders come up with the perfect idea.
1 Like
Before you rush to social media, you’ve made some valid points on a lack of transparency and I think it’s only fair to give Dfinity 24-48 hours to respond. They’re not on the forums and on social media 24/7 as they actually have to build the thing!
1 Like
As I keep saying, the alternatives have been already mentioned
-Delay it
-Speak to interested parties
-fix the fee payment model
-be transparent about the model
What don’t you understand about these tangible actions we can do right now?