It’s insane how much hate Toniq is getting. There’s people with valid concerns, then there’s who are just complaining with absolutely no constructive feedback. If you don’t want to use ckBTC, go fork yourself your own version of ckBTC.
Let’s go, Dfinity and Toniq. 
Why can’t my company collect fees for ckbtc use?
We should not forget that what makes the forum so large is that The boys hate Toniq’s profit potential.
But many people are genuinely looking forward to ckBTC’s release.
That said, I think the good thing about Web3 is that it builds a community by acknowledging the existence of such actors. Personally, I expect those people to create a new ckBTC fork.
Honest question:
You cited Jan’s post and then linked something about a lawmaker in the state of Texas. Was your intent to provide evidence to support Jan’s statement? refute it? Genuinely unclear to me, maybe I’m the only one. If so, feel free to ignore my question.
Update: @JxBrian to their credit explained their intent via DM. I don’t want to make it seem they ignored my question. They replied in good faith via DM. Credit where due.
I believe this statement gets to the root of the matter.
I have asked repeatedly why Dfinity could not deploy ckBTC with optional KYT. It would be great for the IC, because it would leave the network free of a political slant (the way ETH remains politically neutral though many if not most nodes now conform to OFAC regulations). The answer is, it might be great for the IC but is potentially bad for Dfinity.
Here we see how the interests of Dfinity as an organisation and the IC as a network are not always aligned. Many people believe Dfinity will always work for the benefit of the IC, but the truth is that, like all organisations, Dfinity will always behave for the benefit of itself. In most cases, Dfinity and IC benefit from the same things, so the potential contradiction is not visible. This issue has made it starkly clear. I mean, given a choice between a blockchain that is politically neutral and one that is bound to American regulations, is there a single person among us who would choose the latter? I believe not, because transnationalism is a core tenet of crypto but that is where we are, because Dfinity is primarily concerned with itself. If push comes to shove, Dfinity will even spin off a for-profit from a non-profit the way Open AI did.
The only way forward is for the IC to be increasingly free of Dfinity’s influence. But the only way this can happen is if Dfinity itself understands the importance of the move and steers it. Sadly, I see no impulse from Dfinity to structurally increase decentralisation and transparency. Besides, as has been pointed out often, the tokenomics of the IC is unique in providing greatest rewards to long-term stakers, who are also the biggest holders of ICP, which means the same oligarchy will continue to dominate voting in the future.
Now that it is clear an American bias will be embedded into the NNS and in the IC, I cannot continue to be part of the network, as I had mentioned upthread. No loss for the network, certainly a loss for me, because I had a lot of hopes for the IC. I will continue as a member of this forum only as a lurker while my neuron dissolves. Hopefully the liquidity crunch mapped by Kyle Langham that will take hold in late 2024 will allow a reasonable exit. I continue to have a vested interest in the IC’s success, at least until then.
@Denis as someone who sympathizes with your posts, I think there are good reasons why a KYT/non-KYT option is not ideal. It’s the same reason anarchies don’t fare well against any form of government. Non-KYT simply loses against vested interests.
This is why ICP is actually a great opportunity. It brings about decentralization not through anarchy but democracy. Not because democracy is necessarily ideal, but because it’s the best we can do. Your voice is needed to bring balance to this system.
And it’s why I think an SNS is the best way to handle KYT:
This way we are still part of the same world, but everyone’s voice matters. Please analyze and let me know what you think.
I think this is highly unfair. May I ask, what do you propose? That Dfinity ignore its legal counsel and put itself at risk? Is that a fair ask on any developer and entity on any blockchain? I’m not aware of any time in ETH or any chain where the analogous ask would has happened.
The IC as a blockchain is very neutral.
ckbtc canister is a smart contract, and it is a bit of an unfair ask that any developer should put write a smart contract to put users and themselves at risk. Why should it be Dfinity? Why not any other entity? That, I believe, is the ethos of a web3. Why are other developers or yourself “off the hook” in deploying a canister that satisfies your intent?
The code is there… anyone can make their own choices.
Lastly…
To be clear:
A. ckbtc is NOT part of the protocol, it is one of many smart contracts that could do similar functionality.
B. And it is NOT an US-based bias. Many, many countries and many jurisdictions have the concept of KYT and tainted Bitcoin. Bitcoin-integration (for example) is completely neutral and part of the actual protocol. This is only for the smart contract of ckbtc.
But alas… if you are not interested in the IC any more, no harm no foul. I respect folks have limited time and energy. I think myself and others clarified what needed clarifying, explained the trade offs, what needs to be improved, what is being improved, where feedback is necessary, and how more suggestions are welcomed, etc… and I am a bit disappointed that all this effort landed in your mind as “American bias.”
Alas… no harm, no foul if you focus on other endeavors, I guess.
I hope you realise Toniq would have made a loss and loss alone…
Thanks to the current push back and debate, the model will be changed so both Toniq and other providers will be properly incentivised to hold subscription addressing the very solvable problem of internal single point of failure
We still have the chainkeyanalysis single point of failure which is going to take us succeeding as a defi platform to remove (or atleast that’s what’s been communicated)
Do feel we missed out on @skilesare suggestion which had some tradeoffs but could have been cheaper and more efficient
I think you misunderstood me, @diegop . Never suggested Dfinity should not have taken the path it did. In fact I said organisations will always think primarily about themselves. If I was in charge of Dfinity, I would have taken exactly the same decision, to safeguard Dfinity.
Does not mean it is good for the IC. In fact, in my opinion, this is very bad for the IC. Perhaps you are assuming that what is right for Dfinity must be right for the IC. I do not believe that to be the case.
Thanks for responding, I remain interested in and invested in the IC, I am just not a cheerleader any more given the direction it is taking, and not just with KYT. But I do hope I am wrong and the IC will become what I had hoped it would. There are many great teams working on apps and the technical brilliance of the Dfinity team remains unquestioned. Over and out.
You’re not alone in feeling this and this has been one of the biggest downfall to growth
I’m known to campaign for further decentralisation since last year but since then after many many conversations have come to understand Dfinity is in a very precarious position
I’ll still continue to push for Decentralisation since this is one of the biggest inhibitors to other web 3 community entries
Saying this, when in a centralised position of power, this is a great example of how NOT to approach discussion and development
It’s more important now than ever to be fully transparent and run every decisions through the forum
While it’s additional admin, it’s also a small community so the impact is noticable
Anyways we digress from the threads purpose, a middle ground seems to be coming around nicely, I know dfinity keeps saying “just fork bro” but let’s be real - ckBTC by dfinity handled by the NNS will have trust and will be mass adopted by default hence why the community places a lot on it
I appreciate your thoughts on KYT and it’s a very very difficult topic, I personally like that they leave it open for non KYT canisters while opening access to the US markets since ICP still needs to generate volume
No he’s right there, people really do believe this - and it might just be because when there is a final decision, it’s usually “This is what’s been decided”
A first possible step would be to publicise why a decision was made the way they have in the summary but regardless people believe this for a reason so something’s broken somewhere
Yeah, even the blind dfinity supporters arguement is “Dfinity SHOULD do what they want”
From all my time here, icp does not feel like a neutral chain and this is a widely shared sentiment - the hope is, it will be more neutral over time
Understanding the optics will help you understand why there is so much placed on this.
A) if it’s not part of the protocol, it’s not expected to be released by dfinity. There is lots of misconceptions that it is
B) regardless, dfinitys releases come with inherent trust and hence it’s almost certain to become the adopted BTC canister - meaning it will be difficult for other models to be implemented
^think this could have been handled better
This is the general feel, you should really have noticed this with activity in Dev forums aswell but if you haven’t then, I can tell you, outside it’s really taking effect.
I currently feel decentralisation is an insurmountable issue in the short run but all this could be managed better with processed and ways of working to limit most damage
All that is just to express these points need to be onboarded not invalidated
My personal belief is that Jan’s suggestion yesterday has found a great tradeoff to release a more robust system to support our defi Infra - albeit at the cost of additional inflation and KYT is a necessity to tap into the US market while also allowing for non KYT versions to launch on IC
On the positive side of things…
Look at how quickly 400+ messages appeared in this forum when people suddenly became aware that time is of the essence for a project they deeply care about 
Yeah, it would be good to get this level of engagement as a base but nothing moves people like concerns and sadly my role for icp is back out there with retail, on the ground, till there are other areas of concerns
Fingers crossed engagement increases in time as Decentralisation happens
Due to transaction fees (burning ckBTC) and a (BTC) fee when retrieving BTC, there will be a surplus of BTC under the ckBTC minter’s control. The current plan is to mint the difference in ckBTC periodically to pay for cycles. This mechanism is not yet implemented.
So, deviations from the targeted 1:1 ratio will be corrected continuously.
Unfortunately, there is no (good) solution for this problem. The KYT check does not prevent this but it introduces a risk for a potential attacker in that the attacker may lose (tainted) bitcoins sent to the ckBTC minter.
Since the ratio should always be 1:1, the corresponding amount in BTC will remain with the ckBTC minter.
Tagged UTXOs are not just sitting at the bottom, they are quarantined so they can’t be used for any retrieval request.
Help me understand this part
Assume there is someone who unknowingly holds taintedBTC
Is there any risk of them losing their BTC during the minting process?
Yes, there is. If the BTC are tainted, they will be quarantined.
Two additions:
Is there any way for us to just keep them out and let them go?
Is there a reason this has to work the way it does?
I foresee unnecessary drama for ICP with little benefit from quarantine currently
I do not know of a way to reject a transfer to a BTC address under your (or the ckBTC minter’s) control