Thank you all again. Maybe one day, upon retirement, which isn’t too far but not too close either, I’ll learn how to develop. Keep up the great fight! Again, if you want to check out my channel, https://www.youtube.com/@LetsAskClaudeCrypto, and make comments that can educate the ICP and crypto community, please feel free. If there is anything in the videos that you would like to correct, please feel free to make comments. My audience do react to those. Also, if there is anything related to ICP that you would like me to make a video about, please let me know. Peace!
I think there is something in the works that might help you with this soon. For now, I believe you can use CycleOps. The latter can actually top up your canisters for you.
What you are saying is that Institutions are looking for a cheaper version of Etherium while being fully compatible with it. Which has its advantages and disadvantages. And you are absolutely right that is more of a philosophical discussion what path should each project chose. Eth has its own vision, IC went its own way.
As for DYI, I meant this as a business opportunity for someone - make it, offer it to institutional clients. My personal concern about any immutability is the cost of maintaining it. And the longer you plan to support it, the higher the costs become, which won’t be offset by Moore law, unfortunately.
3 Likes
Why can’t people just add a CC and it will buy ICP and convert it to cycles like on any other hosting platform? Month ended, pay your hosting bill or we shut it down. Seems like we are reinventing the wheel with this and i still see teams fumbling the ball on keeping their cannisters topped up.
1 Like
Nothing wrong with offering unique selling points - on top of offering compatibility woth standards that are the cost of entry to participation.
This isnt an eth v icp v xrp thing. Blockchain is but one small piece of institutional tech stack. Its not blockchain vs blockchain - its figuring out the right tool for each use case.
2 Likes
The only criterion for data “survivability” is open source - if a given solution fails, you can fully recreate the entire infrastructure at your own expense.
The fact that other blockchains have different algorithms is not a criterion.
Just as AWS or Azure could disappear like Nokia, Saab, Blackberry, or Yahoo, you name it.
or hotmail… or skype messages…. even though microsoft is long and well.
This Oracle patent is a good indicator of how institutions are approaching blockchain. Blockchain is supposed to be cheaper, faster and improve on 5-9s availability. As complexity decreases thru standardization and abstraction and execution/storage costs decrease thru competition - they’ll be using multiple blockchains - public and private - in parallel or active/passive failover to improve speed and resiliency on a usecase by usecase basis.
IC architecture doesn’t mean developers need to pay all the cycles. It just means the ball is in their court - if they don’t pass it, they have to pay. However, there are many ways to delegate cycle payments, like what Toko does. It’s not trivial to do, but it’s doable.
2 Likes
Like I said - ive always been intrigued by ICP. But the problem is that “alien tech” doesnt mesh with a world driven by standards and consortia. This isnt about lowering ICP standards to ETH - its about meeting the real world in reality. There is no flip the switch moment. Forget tribalism. You cant change one cog in the wheel without affecting every other cog. The reality is the standards the Global Financial System has been built on have developed over the past 100 years - 50 years since tech was introduced. Listen to what Ethereum Joe says. This is actually your target audience. The problem is ICP is doing interoperability “its own way”.
With so many people bashing such innovative tech as the IC, it is a true wonder that we ever make progress in this world.
The more you give people, the more they want. It never ends.
You cannot please everyone and that’s okay.
The IC was designed differently for good reasons and has a different purpose. It is extremely powerful at what it does.
Please by all means, we are not here to please everyone. Those who will put this chain to good use will certainly do so and will in the process gain a competitive advantage in this space.
Those who choose not to will continue to suffer losses, outages, cybercrime, fines, etc.
Their prerogative but I do give credit where credit is due and DFINITY and DOM deserve credit for all the hardcore development work here that has been done over the past decade.
While it is disappointing that we don’t have adoption yet on a grand scale, I do have faith that they can indeed bring it here.
This is an actual serious project imo vs the majority of crypto so I’m sorry but all your negativity is unwarranted in this thread. You jumped on it to bash an amazing project which is wrong.
Several mitigations were revealed for NFTs. This is not a serious issue whatsoever.
1 Like
While ive been intrigued by ICP - enough to spend time here the past 11 months - i am not an ICP holder. I am simply trying to share a perspective i have not seen on this forum. X is much more tribal and combative and i appreciate the conversation today - I have no other motivation than to share this perspective. Too many projects are wrapped up in “we have the best tech” defensive arguments to any constructive criticism.
The “tech” doesnt matter. There is a minimum level of governance and standardization that must be met. And be verifiable. This is a hybrid multichain world. Anyone still clinging to everyone will run on “muh global computer” in 2026 is not paying attention to reality.
Believe me. If I wanted to shit on icp I could have found much better ways to enter into the conversation that replying to someone spamming forums about how dfinity is screwing over the 8yg. You want to change the world? Meet them. Then move them. Build it and they will come is a fairy tale sold by founders, VCs and those that dont understand how the real world institutions work.
1 Like
The tech does indeed matter. ICP is multi-chain in the best possible way imo.
I know DFINITY and DOM ultimately have the best of intentions despite some people disagreeing with me. Having said that I simply voiced my concerns that the current proposal is simply too dangerous at this time without modification despite the need to save expenses no doubt.
Anyways, all input is appreciated but lets not be mean about it like the speculators on CMC who do nothing but complain all day long about ICP.
I do believe this project will not only succeed but will surprise everyone in the end.
If I have offended anyone at DFINITY or DOM personally, I sincerely apologize. I have nothing but the utmost respect for everyone who has worked diligently on this project for the last decade and I honestly do want to see it succeed spectacularly. We need to keep people invested here in the meantime and keep builders like Adam and Donna here as well. They are extremely valuable in my opinion. I also do respect all the node providers even if we cannot technically afford them all at the moment. There is a better proposal to be made here to keep this community together possibly a “hybrid model” as suggested by Henn who queried A.I. about it. I think that is a good middle ground. Otherwise, I highly suggest doing the right thing and simply grandfathering in the current base with everyone deciding for themselves if they want to accept the new staking terms.
That would be the best way to show proper appreciation for the X year gang who has made the ultimate sacrifice here in all of crypto and keep the trust in this project for years to come in addition to what needs to be done.
Im happy for you. Or sad. But im not reading that slop. Dont listen to me. Im as retarded as you. Listen to the institutions.
It seems as if DOM is listening to Switzerland and Europe who do not want to be feudal slaves to big tech anymore. I agree with them.
Even if ICP only signs up every European nation with sovereign subnets, ICP will do extremely well hosting all these governments websites which will lead to European institutions following suit.
Then expand from there.
There are millions of angles here for ICP to succeed.
I was just about to say that there is no smoking allowed on the forum so if you truly desire to be banned, so be it. 
Please let’s end this discussion now as we are completely off topic at this point.
Take care.
1 Like
OP was how surprised they were ICP NFTs are not immutable. Spin it however you want.
After all, ICP is perfectly tailored to institutions. No, institutions don’t want ‘infinite hosting until the end of time,’ as initially proposed. Institutions want predictable fees, and ICP delivers this like no other. Every killer promise is a red flag. Pro-crowd design decisions shouldn’t be confused with pro-institution decisions. Terra Luna was pro-crowd, it also made promises, and people loved it for it. We all know how that turned out.
Personally, I’m also somewhat of an idealist and would prefer some pro-crowd decisions in ICP. I’d prefer everyone to be a node provider simply by connecting their equipment without asking, like in most blockchains. But again, this model is unacceptable for institutions.
The bot automatically hides comments containing offensive words until they are reviewed by the mods. Please avoid 
1 Like
So like HashSphere | Hashgraph ?
Like AWS? Supply chain federation?