Love to work with ICP. Good people, good tech

This is another perfect example of why I think people misunderstand ICP's marketing. Look at WebAssembly. When was the last time you saw an advertisement telling ordinary people how incredible WebAssembly is? Most people probably don't even know what it is. Yet it's becoming an increasingly important part of modern computing. Why? Because it solves actual problems. WebAssembly allows developers to run code efficiently across different platforms and programming languages in a sandboxed environment. It started in web browsers and is now expanding into servers, edge computing and distributed infrastructure. Developers adopt it because it's USEFUL. Now look at ICP. ICP takes WebAssembly and builds an entire decentralized cloud infrastructure around it. Instead of just executing code, ICP allows developers to build and host full-stack applications, store persistent data, serve websites, run backend services and execute AI workloads directly on the network. No traditional cloud provider required for compatible workloads. And look at Dominic's post. DFINITY didn't just recognize the importance of WebAssembly early. It continues contributing to the technology and supporting its development. This is why I think comparing ICP's marketing to the marketing of other cryptocurrencies completely misses the point. ICP is infrastructure. Think Linux, PostgreSQL, Kubernetes, WebAssembly and the technologies developers rely on without ordinary people even knowing they exist. Those technologies still need marketing, but they're marketed to developers and organizations looking for solutions. And I think ICP is ALREADY doing exactly that. Look at what's been happening. Pakistan signed an agreement with DFINITY to develop sovereign cloud and AI infrastructure, including plans for its own ICP subnet. Cambodia signed an agreement to explore ICP-powered smart-city infrastructure. DFINITY partnered with UNDP to explore sovereign cloud and decentralized AI, with pilots involving country offices and engagement with governments. And @SwissSubnet is working on sovereign infrastructure for enterprises and institutions. How many people saw the conversations, meetings and technical discussions that led to those announcements? And that's exactly my point. People keep saying ICP isn't marketing because they aren't seeing advertisements everywhere or paid influencers talking about it. But have you considered that maybe YOU aren't the target market they're trying to reach? @dfinity isn't just trying to convince random people on Crypto Twitter to buy ICP. They're talking to developers, enterprises, governments and institutions about fundamentally changing the infrastructure their applications and services run on. Those conversations don't necessarily happen publicly. A government exploring sovereign cloud infrastructure isn't going to post every meeting on X. An enterprise evaluating a new computing platform isn't going to announce every technical discussion. Then suddenly you see an announcement involving Pakistan, Cambodia or the United Nations, and everyone acts like it came out of nowhere. It didn't. There's a difference between marketing a token and building relationships that could lead to actual infrastructure adoption. That's VERY different from spending millions convincing retail investors to buy another token. I'm all for more ICP marketing, especially community-driven marketing. There's plenty of room to improve awareness and make the technology easier to understand. But I think people are overlooking how much work is already happening outside the usual crypto bubble. Build useful infrastructure. Show developers and institutions what it solves. Make it easy for them to adopt. Eventually, the people using applications built on ICP won't even need to know what ICP is. Just like most people using WebAssembly today have absolutely no idea they're using it. That's what successful infrastructure looks like. $ICP

This is too important to disappear under a long investigation, so here is the short version for everyone who did not want to read the full thing. For 5 days, I recorded almost every Solana token launch I could capture. The system collected 145,228 launches, roughly 29,000 new tokens per day. Then I stopped looking at the tokens and started following the wallets behind them. The first thing that stood out was concentration. Just 10 addresses created 8,895 tokens in 7 days. The largest created 1,621, roughly 1 launch every 6 minutes, around the clock. These are normal keypair wallets, not Pumpfun service addresses. One of them repeatedly creates a token and then sells its own token within seconds or minutes. The economics explain why this is possible. A launch requires roughly 0.0089 SOL of rent-funded account creation, around $1 at the observed price. Much of that rent can later be reclaimed when accounts are closed. In other words, producing another token is effectively close to free. Once the cost of manufacturing the asset approaches zero, the scarce resource is no longer capital. It is attention. Then it gets more interesting: I followed the funding layer behind one creator and found another wallet that had funded 22,258 token accounts, repeatedly with the exact same 0.00148844 SOL amount. In one transaction, it distributed the same token in the exact same quantity to 11 different wallets. It shows something important: holder counts can be manufactured mechanically and cheaply. The wallet had spent about 33 SOL just funding the accounts behind those distributions. I followed one of those recipient wallets further. Its recent activity consisted of DFlow swaps between roughly 0.0551 and 0.0567 SOL, repeating every few minutes with almost no variation. Based on the observed cadence, that single wallet would generate roughly 17 SOL of trading volume per day. Extrapolated across the 11 wallets from that distribution transaction, the observed rate would be around 190 SOL per day. That second figure is an estimate, not a measured daily total, but the transaction pattern itself is directly visible on-chain. So the structure I found looks like this: -Layer 1 creates the asset. -Layer 2 can manufacture the holder count. -Layer 3 can manufacture activity and volume. Those are 3 of the main signals retail traders routinely use to decide whether something looks alive, distributed and actively traded. And this is not just 1 wallet cluster. I checked 6 of the top 10 creator wallets. They were funded from different sources, including Binance, Bybit, OKX and unrelated wallets, with wallet ages ranging from 10 days to more than 1 year. I could not establish a common operator between them. That actually makes the finding more interesting: this appears less like 1 operation and more like a repeatable business model that multiple independent operators have discovered. One of those creator wallets was also receiving Axiom Rewards, meaning the generated trading activity can potentially create an additional revenue stream through trading-terminal incentives. The metadata has the same factory-like fingerprints. In the portion I had processed, usepaid-app appeared on 569 different tokens, elonmusk was claimed as the X handle by 73, and individual image files were reused across more than 50 tokens. Only 13.8% of the relevant metadata had been processed at that point, so those are minimum counts, not estimates. The trading results: Across hundreds of thousands of measured entry points, only 8.0% were profitable after 30 seconds, 8.7% after 60 seconds and 12.8% after 120 seconds. Average returns were negative at every one of those horizons. A realistic bonding-curve round trip cost about 2.47% through fees, spread and impact before the trader had even made a directional mistake. My ultra-fast test entered within 12 seconds of launch and exited within 30 seconds across 1,771 different tokens. It still averaged -2.41% per trade, with only 108 winners. The underlying directional edge was about +0.06%. The friction was about 40 times larger. There was even a trap inside my own data. The 5-minute survivors showed a positive average return, but only 16.5% of the original observations still had a measurable exit price at that point. The apparently bullish result was survivor bias. Most of the sample had already disappeared from the calculation. The chain already shows that tokens can be produced at industrial scale for almost nothing, holder counts can be engineered, trading activity can be automated, metadata can be recycled, and the average retail trader entering these launches is fighting brutal execution costs and terrible base rates.

Onchain is the new online.

"The question every government asks now is how to keep meaningful resilience around their national data." AI is changing how software gets built and how services reach people, and countries are choosing the infrastructure they will run on in the middle of it. Ali Theyab Al-Zuhairi shared his thoughts on what the UNDP brings to that choice: trust. He calls it the real currency. @AliATheyab @UNDP

The narrative has been tried for five years, and it hasn't delivered results. I'm not holding my breath for that to change. Usage is the only thing that unavoidably moves the price. Take an extreme example: at $3, suppose burn reduces supply by 10% a month. It would take ~47T cycles/s (~1,000× today's burn), which would remove all floating supply in less than six months. Demand for cycles doesn't care what internet-computer:native trades at, devs always pay a flat 1 XDR (~$1.37) per 1T cycles, so the burn keeps coming regardless. The price has to move upward, there's no way around it. That's the math. Competing with other chains means fighting over a few billion in fees. Competing with cloud hyperscalers means an almost trillion-dollar market. ICP doesn't need to beat the clouds, just ~0.2% of that market is ~1,000× today's burn, a rounding error for the hyperscalers. On moving workloads off AWS, Azure & the established software stack, ICP doesn't need to depend on that. Most of the demand won't come from migrations, but from entirely new AI-built apps that never had a home on AWS to begin with. Gartner already expects 80% of sovereign cloud spend to come from new solutions rather than migrations. The bigger shift is that traditional SaaS is dying fast. I work in the field, and I honestly can't believe how quickly small & mid-sized companies are replacing established SaaS products with their own AI-built tools now that they're actually reliable. That's exactly the kind of demand ICP is adapted to serve. Cloud Engines & OpenSaaS are the way to go, that's where the main revenue should come from. Public subnets are great as a decentralized backbone for dapps & DeFi, but enterprises & governments want their own engine: their own nodes, regions & specs. The real advantage is being able to combine hyperscalers and local data centers into a single sovereign cloud that keeps running even if one provider goes fully down, with no DevOps team needed to hold the infra together. This is truly the right product at the right time. Time will tell whether it can capture a meaningful share of the market and cycle burn will show whether it's succeeding.

$ICP We are developing on the Internet itself.

Is $ICP the 3rd big crypto innovation after Bitcoin and Ethereum? See what Hans (@hansrempel ) from @diode_chain has to say about it 👇

on-chain matters

The private key that moves a Bitcoin never gets assembled anywhere. Nodes hold shares and sign jointly, which is how an @dfinity canister can spend real bitcoin:native with no bridge and no custodian. internet-computer:native ⬇️ bsc.news/news/icp-bitcoin-ch…

ICP moving exactly in this direction youtu.be/Gj13NR35WU4?is=Wbuf…

Watch this clip carefully! Years ago, @dominic_w shared a bold vision: the Internet Computer as a decentralized cloud capable of competing with Big Tech. Today, @dfinity is bringing that vision to life with Cloud Engines on $ICP — sovereign AI infrastructure designed to operate at nation scale. The Internet Computer is becoming the decentralized cloud & operating layer for the next generation of software, services, and AI.

ICP uses a highly sophisticated security and decentralization model, which all blockchains that wish to function as clouds will need to copy. Justin's latest misunderstandings (below) provide a good segue to talk about this, and share some expertise that even networks he's invested in might use. 1. Node count does not equal security or independence from centralized actors. The claim that the number of nodes in a proof-of-stake network reflects decentralization and security is only an attractive idea that boils down to industry folklore and marketing. The node count doesn't matter per se, as I explain below. For networks that depend on consensus to function, their security actually derives from the total number of *independent participants* involved consensus, and how voting power/participation power is divided between them. In proof-of-stake networks, voting power derives from stake, rather than nodes. However, large stakers often stake via lots of nodes, sometimes to create the impression of decentralization, sometimes to partition access to their keys, and other times because their networks limit how much stake can be attached to a single node. But here's the rub: if someone controls enough stake to control the network, it doesn't matter how many nodes they have spread their stake across. Today, many networks have large numbers of nodes, but are in fact can be controlled by one entity, or a group of closely related entities. This creates the following problems: — They might make an honest mistake upgrading or configuring the network, and cause a disaster by accident; — a hacker might commandeer their control to do something terrible; — they might go bankrupt, and switch their nodes off, potentially causing loss of hosted data, and worse; — they might subtly manipulate computations and data, to extact value from users somehow, sometimes without anyone being able to detect what is happening and; — may other things 2. When someone says "the network is very secure and decentralized because it has lots of nodes..." We know that across the "monolithic" proof-of-stake networks Justin is currently invested into, validator companies often operate tens of thousands of nodes using stake lent to them by customers in return for a share of the staking rewards. In plain sight, this provides a demonstration of how the number of nodes in a network doesn't equal the number of independent consensus participants. However, hidden centralization is more of a problem. For example, some time ago, the Crypto Leaks website shared video of a senior Ava Labs technical administrator claiming that in fact the company, and its founder and CEO, Emin Gün Sirer, own a huge portion of the AVAX supply that controls the Avalanche blockchain, and in fact, secretly operate the majority of its nodes, which they use to stake their holdings to both earn the lion's share of rewards and maintain hidden control. They are not alone. Many proof-of-stake blockchains are run by companies and cabals of founders, execs and investors that secretly own a huge portion of the supply, and hide the fact by self-operating large numbers of nodes. Aside from helping them get rich, this hidden centralization also helps them with two other things: 1) It provides them with hidden de facto control over their networks, which allows them to force through orderly node upgrades and configurations without the difficulty of decentralizing and having to invest effort developing specialized autonomous network governance and orchestration systems, such as the Internet Computer's Network Nervous System (NNS). 2) It inflates the price of their token: because they earn the lion's share of the staking rewards, they can stash them away for later, preventing them hitting the markets, which isn't a problem for them, because they have huge additional holdings they can sell from. By reducing the flow of tokens to the markets they keep the price higher, which i) enables to them to sell their holdings to the public at higher prices, and ii) keeps the market cap of their networks higher, which lends them prestige, which further attracts investors, including institutional investors who don't understand the game they're playing. The public would be upset if they could see the truth. For this reasons, they often create large numbers of nodes while peddling the nonsense that the nodes are evidence of great decentralization. 3. Node count vs decentralization in open networks For any decentralized network, whether its a monolithic network, or a subnet within a larger network, like a subnet on the Internet Computer, what matters for security and resilience is how consensus participation rights are divided amongst independent parties. There are proven laws of mathematics governing how this works. If one party has 1/3 or more of the participation, then they can start exercising various forms of control over the network. Thus, if participation is distributed equally over nodes, as it is on the Internet Computer (where the specialized hardware involved plays the role of a form of stake), it doesn't matter if a subnet has 1,000,000 nodes, and one party controls 333,334 of them, or 10 nodes, and one party controls 4 of them — each creates a similarly bad situation, since one party has 1/3 and can thus exert hidden control. To capture this reality, the blockchain industry came up with the concept of the "Nakamoto Coefficient." This is a number that tracks the number of independent parties that must collude to control a network. In both of the above examples, the Nakamoto coefficient is 1, even though vastly different numbers of nodes are involved, since a single party can exert control. Again, what matters is the number of independent parties involved in consensus, not the number of nodes. People who claim otherwise are often just trotting out the same old snakeoil. 4. A key problem: the anonymity of node operators and stakers A key challenge for proof-of-stake networks is that stakers/node operators are usually *anonymous*. This design choice is often sold to the public using old cypherpunk rubrics that anonymity allows networks to resist government control. Of course, there is some truth in this, esepcially as concerns proof-of-work networks, but the proof-of-stake people making these argument are hardly ever cypherpunks! The reality is that in practice anonymity has just become a way to fake decentralization, and hide massive unscrupulous profiteering. (A further technical observation is that anonymity is anyway a weak shield in practice. For example, November 2022, Hetzner, one of Europe's largest clouds, decided to ban Solana nodes, and deleted 40% of the network's nodes overnight. The fact is they were able to easily identify the Solana nodes among the millions of other compute instances through technical means. The government could too.) 5. Moving on from anonymity, and creating powerful incentives for node operators not to be evil The Internet Computer eschews node operator anonymity. When a prospective node operator wants go gain a "node provider" ID, through which they can join nodes to the network, they have to submit a proposal to the Network Nervous System, which includes identity and background information that allows the community to verify who they are, and what relationships they might have to other operators. Once they receive their node provider ID, this feeds back into how the Network Nervous System combines nodes. Upon this foundation, the NNS combines nodes to form subnets that it knows are operated by independent parties — which combinations create the required levels of decentralization in a deterministic way, while using the minimum number of nodes for efficiency purposes. Further, non-anonymous node providers join a system where they have powerful incentives to behave honestly. Simply put, as the result of their declarations, if node providers act in an evil way, for example colluding to corrupt their subnets, they become legally liable, worldwide, for the results of their nefarious actions. Moreover, if they seriously disrupt the correct functioning of the network, they could additionally face criminal prosection under laws such as the UK's Computer Misuse Act from 1990. The Internet Computer can slash misbehaving node providers, banishing their expensive hardware from the network, and proof-of-stake networks can similarly slash the stakes of their node operators. However, slashing is a financial incentive that exists within a hypothesized microeconomic framework. In some scenarios, it's possible that a node operator might extract more value through dishonest actions than they lose when they get slashed. The introduction of legal penalties for dishonest behavior act as a far more powerful real-world incentive. The Internet Computer is more secure by design. 6. Scaling and efficiency using deterministic decentralization The Internet Computer is essentially a network of super advanced subnet blockchains, which run under the control of its Network Nervous System, which runs on its own subnet (which also chains cryptographic keys to the subnets it creates, enabling the result of every call/tx into the network that triggers onchain computation to be transitively signed by the public key of the NNS — yes, Justin is talking nonsense when he says there is no shared security). Individually, these subnets can host serious amounts of onchain computation and data, and they can even serve web. However, to scale-out horizontally, the network has to create additional subnets on demand. This is only possible because the Network Nervous System can look at the available pool of nodes, and then draw down just the right combinations of nodes required to create new subnets with the necessary Nakamoto coefficients. By design, it uses only the minimum number of nodes required to create the necessary Nakamoto coefficient, minimizing the replication of computation and data, driving incredible efficiency. 7. Going beyond node operator independence Deterministic decentralization makes other considerations too, in addition to combining nodes from independent operators. Here they are: Data centers — if a subnet's nodes are in the same data center, data center failure would also take the subnet down, so it combines nodes installed in different data centers. Geographies — a nuclear strike might take out all the data centers in a geographical area, so its combines nodes in data centers that are geographically dispersed around the world. Jurisdictions — if a jurisdiction such as the EU suddenly banned blockchain (hopefully not!) they might take down all nodes inside the regions they control, so it combines nodes based in different jurisdictions too. Using this more nuanced understanding of decentralization, deterministic decentralization squeezes incredible security and resilience from the minimum number of nodes. This is something that just isn't possible on proof-of-stake networks with anonymous stakers and node operators. 8. Security and resilience on a cost curve In practice, deterministic decentralization is also applied within the context of considerations about the most appropriate balance of security and cost. Today, Ethereum replicates computation and data across hundreds of thousands of nodes. This is one of the reasons why its onchain computation costs are many orders of magnitude greater than on the Internet Computer. Yet, the computer science says that the amount of security and resilience they are gaining by adding more and more nodes exponentially decayed to zero long ago. The Internet Computer, meanwhile, is focused on providing cloud, which demands efficiency. In fact, the Internet Computer always aims to combine the minimum number of nodes required to produce the level of security and resilience appropriate for the application, because in reality, cost/benefit curves are often vastly different, and one size doesn't fit all. Justin complains that shared public subnets used by the Internet Computer to host applications and services only use 13 nodes. In fact, this number of independent parties creates a Nakamoto coefficient of 5, which is much higher than actually exists on most proof-of-stake blockchains behind the scenes. Simply put, it is sufficient for these applications. The soon to be released cloud engine technology will provide market validation (cloud engines are private subnets created by enterprises that wish to select their own nodes). My bet is we will mostly see enterprises configure cloud engines with just 4 or 7 nodes, which will provide Nakamoto coefficients of 2 and 3 respectively, which they will see as easily sufficient for their needs. They will only add more nodes if they want to scale out query capacity, or reduce web latency times in different regions. This works both ways. For example, the Network Nervous System allocates ~50 nodes to its own subnet, and a similar number to subnets involved in the hosting of threshold cryptography, which allows hosted software to create public keys that the network can sign for on demand (e.g. to custody bitcoin within an application) and securely encrypt data stored on the network (e.g. the vetKeys functionality). These subnets benefit from a huge Nakamoto coefficient of 17+, as well as the additional considerations that deterministic decentralization makes. If it wanted to, it could combine hundreds of nodes to create a subnet, thanks to the advanced nature of the network technology involved. The ability of the Internet Computer to dynamically configure subnet nodes in pursuit of the precise amount of decentralization required, when considering all relevant factors, reflects its incredible sophistication, and why it can provide tamperproof unstoppable onchain cloud. To date, the implementation of deterministic decentralization remains unique to the Internet Computer. But, like other innovations the network pioneered years ago, which others are only now pursuing, such as reverse gas, chains that covet cloud provision will inevitably also attempt to adopt these methodologies. Possibly, even those that Justin holds dear.

We should end treating ICP as the only one needed chain. ICP was designed like a decentralized always-on aws, its value is in that. It'll never replace aws. Which applications would need these features? In web2 Idk but maybe starting with the web3 space wouldn't be a bad idea

$ICP earnings less and less negative, towards better sustainability in comparison to other projects

#InternetComputer $ICP supported chains Did you know? Your favorite dApps typically run on AWS and communicate with blockchains using RPC calls over HTTPS. 1️⃣ #Aptos 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA, EdDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 2️⃣ #Arweave 🔒 Authentication: Not yet supported 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 3️⃣ #Avalanche 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 4️⃣ #Bitcoin 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA, Schnorr 🔗 Integrations: Direct 💰 Assets: ckBTC 5️⃣ #Cardano 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA, EdDSA, Schnorr 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 6️⃣ #Cosmos 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA, EdDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 7️⃣ #Dogecoin 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA 🔗 Integrations: CK-Doge Canister 8️⃣ #Ethereum 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA 🔗 Integrations: EVM RPC, ic-web3-rs 💰 Assets: ckETH, ckERC20 9️⃣ #Filecoin 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 🔟 #Hedera 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA, EdDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 1️⃣1️⃣ #Kaspa 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 1️⃣2️⃣ #Monero 🔒 Authentication: EdDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 1️⃣3️⃣ #NEAR 🔒 Authentication: EdDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 1️⃣4️⃣ #Polkadot 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA, EdDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 1️⃣5️⃣ #Solana 🔒 Authentication: EdDSA 🔗 Integrations: Solana RPC (Alpha) ⚡ Additional Features: gSOL (Beta) 1️⃣6️⃣ #Stacks 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 1️⃣7️⃣ #Stellar 🔒 Authentication: EdDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 1️⃣8️⃣ #Sui 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA, EdDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 1️⃣9️⃣ #Toncoin 🔒 Authentication: EdDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 2️⃣0️⃣ #TRON 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls 2️⃣1️⃣ #XRP 🔒 Authentication: ECDSA, EdDSA 🔗 Integrations: RPC via HTTPS outcalls

Although some conclusions differ from my perspective, let's work together to create a constructive and collaborative way forward. Clarifying a few inaccuracies and sharing my perspective. 👉ICP cannot be an L1, P2P money. While it could be used for such a use case, ICP will never be the most decentralized settlement layer for tokenized assets, as its primary goal is sufficient decentralization and optimizing raw computational and data performance. 👉or a permissionless blockchain / requires KYC for validators #InternetComputer is permissioned by the NNS DAO, which controls the entire network and is under decentralized governance. Stakers vote on all code changes as well as the onboarding and offboarding of nodes and providers. This does not mean that the blockchain itself cannot be used permissionlessly by participants. It’s worth highlighting that certain enterprises have specific use cases requiring transparency about the ownership of the hardware hosting their software and data. ICP addresses these needs, making it an ideal choice for organizations that would never operate on networks where their data is managed by unknown entities. Becoming a node provider requires submitting an NNS proposal that includes KYC details, proof of hardware ownership, and a contract with a data center capable of delivering dual 10 Gbps fiber-optic connections from two separate internet service providers. ICP’s ambitious goal of hosting the entire Internet natively on the blockchain necessitates high-end hardware node requirements, ensuring web scale performance and functionality. 👉because it relies on 13 datacenters / are likely controlled by a few entities. ICP employs deterministic decentralization, ensuring that no node provider operates more than one node within a subnet. Furthermore, all nodes in the same subnet must be distributed across different data centers and distinct countries and jurisdictions. As of now, the ICP comprises 1,496 node machines operated by 134 distinct node providers, with data centers distributed across the globe. There are several types of subnets on ICP, and the smallest one is the application subnet, which consists of 13 nodes. Each node is owned by a unique entity, and all nodes are geographically distributed. Subnet types: Application subnets System subnets Fiduciary subnets European subnet (GDPR compliant) Swiss subnet (regulatory requirement by government for enterprises) On roadmap: Storage subnets (Current: $5/1GB per year, after much lower.) GPU/AI subnets 👉You have to trust @dfinity which contradicts the principles of web3. All code changes are autonomously applied by the NNS DAO upon passing a proposal. ICP is the only DAO with a truly autonomous component, meaning there’s no need to trust the core team or rely on node operators to decide when or if they will upgrade their nodes, as everything is managed by the NNS DAO. In this regard, ICP surpasses all other DAOs in the space, which, at best, can be considered DOs (Decentralized Organizations), as their autonomous part is not achievable, at least not without relying on offchain third-party solutions. On that note, @dfinity holds only 20% of the voting power. 👉 EGLD can solve all the same problems as ICP ICP and EGLD address fundamentally different issues. ICP cannot function as a maximally decentralized token settlement layer, while EGLD cannot serve as a full-stack blockchain cloud. This is clear when considering their node hardware requirements. ICP demands high-end hardware to operate as a blockchain supercomputer, whereas EGLD allows you to use Raspberry Pi or even a smartphone, enabling true maximum decentralization. (Hopefully, the 2,500 EGLD staking requirement will be reduced in the future.) 👉It forces users to rely on specific hardware with extremely high requirements, and it doesn’t provide the freedom to verify everything, everywhere, on any device, with minimal investment. I think this is where the fundamental misunderstanding regarding #InternetComputer lies. The node providers on ICP are strictly infrastructure providers; they receive a fixed monthly income regardless of the ICP price and are not active participants, as the nodes are fully controlled by the NNS. ICP's vision for WEB3 is a world where most things run on the blockchain, with any ledger blockchain used for tokenized assets. All users and developers need is a browser and internet access. Computation and data are verifiable, cryptographically secure, and tamper-proof, enabling full-stack hosting with deterministic execution. Basically, what #InternetComputer has already achieved is the creation of a fully sovereign blockchain network that already function as Internet WEB3 cloud, completely independent and not reliant on any third-party services for its operation. It is designed with disaster precautionary measures to ensure resilience, reliability, and continuity of operations by having the NNS strategically distribute each subnet across nodes all over the globe. Deterministic decentralization achieves maximum decentralization while requiring minimal number of nodes. For instance, with 1,000 anonymous nodes, it impossible to verify whether they are controlled by just a few entities or to hold those entities accountable in cases of tampering or collusion. I fully acknowledge that there could be open debate about what is sufficiently decentralized, as it is a spectrum based on the goal.

🚨The Self-writing Internet is coming💥 Time in the market beats timing the market. $ICP is, and always has been, a long term project with lots of growth & potential. Data displays massive growth. The vision of the @dfinity Foundation displays a lot of potential. The self-writing internet will increase the CBR, Revenue & Fees that the Blockchain is generating + the number of daily active users. As you know, I am a big fan of use cases and I do invest in projects with real life use cases. @caffeineai has tons of real life use cases. The World Computer paradigm is something that only one project can achieve at the moment. The writings are on the wall. $ICP = World Computer ♾

Don‘t fade $ICP