the same level of protection that we get from h/w wallet developers also applies to the same level of protection we get from the Dfinity Foundation developers. What’s to stop them from releasing malicious code and voting to approve it while 50% of the DAO blindly follows … be real
there’s only two things that stop known developers from doing that and it’s called: lawsuits and prison.
The protocols you are working on and the demo is pretty good! I like how it builds on the current identity solutions and makes them portable. Dapp wallets should definitely implement these. Imo wallet dapps should go SNS and fairly distribute voting power to the dapps orgs/daos and users using them. Internet Identity is just not trading off security and sovereignty for convenience and portability. It’s a pretty good component to build with, but it doesn’t mean it will do everything. At least, when devs are using it as a serious wallet, the whole dapp has to be DAO governed, but then devs sacrifice portability. That choice also requires more decentralization and audits. If they use a third-party wallet/identity they gain portability, and may maintain security, but lose sovereignty. Accessibility also being a dimension of this choice. It’s a trade-off every dapp has to make for itself.
@superduper Pls check how proposals get reviewed Proposal to elect new release rc--2024-10-11_14-35
What scam are you referring to?
Toniq Labs Stephen Andrews-------This Person
CronicsP2E | Facebook | Linktree This Project
If the officials continue to hide my postings without giving the community a just answer, no one will come back to ic.
Toniq Labs - a team with a concerning track record: They abandoned their game development project, discontinued the Stoic Wallet, and allegedly inserted a backdoor into MotokoNFT. Yet they are now handling KYC for ckBTC. I urge the officials in charge to please listen to the feedback from the community and developers.
Didn’t Dom ask for community feedback on Twitter? Well, here’s the community feedback right on your official forum. Come on, let’s hear your response.
@dominicwilliams I hope you’ll come and confront the community head on in your post!
As i understand KYC for ckBTC might only be needed for apps. Toniq Labs itself cant mint ckBTC from thin air. What they can doing is, if someone mints on theyr platform, BTC into ckBTC, Toniq Labs can be holder of all those tokens and give users on its platform a token that is just a token with 0 fees and is backed with ckBTC. So new token has similar mint and burn mechanism like BTC canister. This can give full control over user funds and at the same time collect ckBTC fees from transactions. KYC is just its own platform users mints, they cant affect real ckBTC in any way.
Motoko Ghost collection is as trusted or not trusted as its creator, only way to get trusted canisters is have code public and canister controller blackholed.
All of these observations are based on our personal judgments, and I sincerely hope the official team can directly address these community concerns. (Not just my questions as an ordinary user - many developers who have been building on IC for years have raised similar concerns on Twitter, some of which I’ve shared in my previous posts). I kindly request that the official team first address the questions raised within the internal forum community, as these come from people who have truly followed and supported you for years.
I’m still waiting, how come the official people don’t answer and respond to the community anymore?
Multiple possible reasons why you’re not getting official responses: