Thank you a lot for answering @dieter.sommer 
My opinion will be unpopular, without a doubt.
But to facilitate your reading and save your time, here is my question at the end of my post : “Could you tell us if you see some advantages to bypass phase 1 and start with phase 2, taking the time, and after this only implement CkETH following the same order as for CkBTC ? Or for you, there is none dilemma and you are 100% to start with phase 1 ?”
Now, my opinion :
I would prefer that the phase 2 become the phase 1 and that only once this phase accomplished, CkETH be built upon this native integration. This, in order to follow the same founded logic behind BTC integration and CkBTC development. And currently, I don’t see any good reason to not follow the same order.
Even if it was possible to launch a first CkETH before Phase 2, and after this, « refresh » the CkETH by building it again relying on the phase 2 development, it :
- could look disordered and make people wondering « why did they reverse the order in the first place ? » ;
- could look inconsistent with BTC/CkBTC order launch ;
- would add complexity to the whole process of integration and cost much more resources to Dfinity than if they just had kept the same order that for BTC/CkBTC.
I feel like we put the cart before the horse here.
The BTC integration is a marvel and the CkBTC a promising success built upon it. Dfinity took the time yes, but they did well, because it has been launched once only, following a well justified order : technically and marketingly justified and understandable by everyone, even the non dev public (very important). Given this success, why don’t we just respect the same order even if it takes more time ?
In my humble opinion, here is why, but if I am wrong, please tell me.
People have been waiting for BTC integration for a long time. During that whole time, Dfinity have been heavily pressured and even harassed. We were in a fuddy environment, IC was attacked everywhere by everyone and you were being daily bullied by some hysterical people on Twitter and here. My point is I am afraid that this past is being determining Dfinity about the ETH integration and CkETH timeline and by consequence their order.
Maybe I am wrong, but I feel as if the ETH integration had been very quickly announced after the BTC integration in Twitter messages. People were even surprised by this proximity. We were told « it will be quickly out (in march), we could do it very soon, let’s do it all together. Help us people, you are welcome. Take it, this integration will be yours ».
My whole point is in these announcements : I am afraid that Dfinity have been like traumatized by the « accusations » of being slow, being centralizing the chain (by owning the process of the integration), being prioritizing BTC integration rather than doing other stuff presumed more important things by some fellows, etc.
Personally I have disagreed with each one of these accusations, and we are blessed that Dfinity prioritized the BTC integration and that they took the proper time to sort it out in due time and in due shape (even if I noted the acceleration in the last days, maybe to reassure the market and reward the patience of people). When I read that other devs could have done this while Dfinity should have done other stuff, we are forced to recognize that none dev did and maybe no one would have done it. We will never know.
Today, I see a sort of acceleration to integrate ETH in a way or another, and the fastest possible, so much that CkETH would come firstly and the native integration after only. At least, I would be like @dfisher in favor of finally having a proper CkETH developed with the same logic that CkBTC’s, so by not keeping the first version of CkETH which would be launched before the native integration. But ideally, i would be to start with phase 2 bypassing phase 1 and being patient to do things orderly and properly. How could we justify that a first CkETH would have been launched before being properly launched, « proper » meaning « following the same logic that CkBTC : waiting for the native BTC integration for well founded reasons ».
This is why I would prefer that Dfinity keep the same state of mind that they had for BTC integration, because it is clearly a success. Yes it took time, but now it is done and properly done. I feel uncomfortable with the narrative of the ETH launch, being divided in phases looking like starting with the end and finishing with the beginning. Etc. And I am afraid that it creates confusion, complexity and confusion, notably to the newcomers and the haters.
I would prefer that the native ETH integration come first, and once sorted out, that the CkETH is built upon it.
We have plenty of time before the next BTC halving. The bear market is still here. And anyway, Dfinity should stay the master of the clocks (« Rester maître des horloges ») by not being in a hurry, not being dictated the rythme and the order. This integration is too important to be « improvised ». We will have plenty of chains/tokens to integrate to let non Dfinity dev to operate their magic, but the first two ones are too important to improvise whereas a crowned success happened under Dfinity lead.
To summary : this integration should be driven EXACTLY as BTC’s. We should see the enthusiasm about BTC integration and CkETH to do exactly the same thing with ETH. There is no rush. The only rush is to do things properly. As a researcher myself (other domain), the main strength of IC is that its team is constituted of searchers, listening to the time of the research, not the contingencies of the markets. And it is for the best. Some doers will bring another and complementary spirit to IC, but Dfinity must stay as they are, keeping their searchers state of mind, doing things taking the necessary time rather than listening the time that the investors can psychologically handle.
Could you tell us if you see some advantages to start with phase 2, taking the time, and after this implement CkETH ? Or for you, there is none dilemma and you are 100% to start with phase 1 ?
I genuinely probably miss a point, so don’t hesitate to tell for which technical reasons you don’t proceed just like with BTC/CkBTC. But if it is only political or « marketingal », you should be in warrior mode like you did, for our greatest happiness.