rnjskywalker

@Cryptodaz_fx @kristianscrypto @JesusMartinez ICP didn't launch at 700$ , FTX perps launched it and hype sustained it, if you are stupid its not ICPs fault

@kristianscrypto @JesusMartinez The private sale for $ICP was at $0.03 then they launched to public at $700+ That’s an instant 20,000x for anyone that participated in the pre sales 🤣 Let’s be honest about what’s the scam here.

$ICP is miles clear of $TAO & $NEAR .@JesusMartinez another paid shilling donkey talking out of his ass. These are just two very simple differences that set these chains apart, especially highlighting sustainability between these ecosystems for the future, and the future of the internet. This is just some basic shit too.🤦🏿‍♀️

@jp_dawg @RailmanICP Layer zero attack of kelpdao bridge was actually infrastructure problem. 2 compromised RPC nodes sent a forged message to the 1of1 verifier 😂😂😂😂😂. 248m locked and 3 computers could just mint infinite money. ICP could never.

@RailmanICP Stupid comparison. All those hacks weren’t at the protocol level either

$ICP’s direct losses from cyberattacks = effectively $0 at the protocol level. 👀

@jp_dawg @mosesibb wait, Aave-layerzero-kelpDAO exploit was successful because they stole the layerzero DVN node private key or am i wrong? because if I'm right ICPEE architecture solves this entirely.

@rnjskywalker @mosesibb Yeah which is also true for all the other recent hacks which doesn’t keep people from claiming that this could never have happened on icy pee. Well guess what. It has already and will again 👍🏻

And more hacks are coming. #ICP is the solution, build on it

@jp_dawg @mosesibb bug in code?

@mosesibb Why didn't it help odin.fun? halborn.com/blog/post/expl…

@adrianbrink @LayerZero_Core $ICP chain fusion tech guys. Private key is shared to a subnet of 9+ nodes. Verification of transactions pass through consensus. Each ICP subnet can communicate with any chain.

The $rsETH hack is an @LayerZero_Core problem! The honest answer is that L0 should have never existed and this problem of interop should have been solved at the protocol/consensus layer instead. I hope that we can finally go back to actually improve the core $ETH protocol!

@Crypto_Goblinz Check out $ICP chain fusion tech. Any transaction is signed by a whole subnet of nodes ( >10) and the private key is split across the whole subnet, each node contains a piece, 2/3 needed to sign a transaction) No bridges in between. ICP communicates directly with any chain.

The KelpDAO exploit (~$290M, is NOT a LayerZero protocol bug. It's a configuration issue and a case study every project with a cross-chain token needs to look at today. KelpDAO shipped their rsETH OFT with a 1/1 DVN security stack. One required verifier. Zero optional. Threshold 0. Straight from LayerZero Scan's ReceiverOAppConfig on the rsETH bridge pathway: • requiredDVNCount: 1 • requiredDVNNames: [LayerZero Labs] • optionalDVNCount: 0 • optionalDVNThreshold: 0 Source and Destination OApp both labeled "Kelp DAO." Destination is the rsETH OFT Adapter on Ethereum: 0x85d456B2DfF1fd8245387C0BfB64Dfb700e98Ef3. How the attack worked: the forged message's source packet was never actually emitted on the source chain (Unichain). The single required DVN signed an attestation for something that didn't exist and because it was the ONLY required DVN, there was no independent verifier to contradict it. Everything downstream then executed exactly as designed: commitVerification → lzReceive → peer check → OFT decode → rsETH mint. The contracts weren't broken. The verification layer was. One signature and 116,500 rsETH materialized out of thin air on Ethereum. To be clear: LayerZero V2 is modular by design. Apps pick their own security stack X-of-Y-of-N, multiple independent DVNs, thresholds, block confirmations. No one is forced into any configuration. The protocol gave projects the full toolkit. KelpDAO chose 1/1. Even reputable DVNs can have a bad day key compromise, infra failure, bad actor, whatever. That's exactly why you want multiple independent verifiers. Redundancy is the whole point. A 1/1 DVN is the cross-chain equivalent of a 1-of-1 multisig on a treasury. Baseline for any OFT/OApp with serious TVL: • Multiple required DVNs (3–4+) • Independent providers (don't stack correlated risk) use canary DVN as it’s also its own independent client. • Optional DVNs + threshold on top • Sane block confirmations If you're a founder or dev with an OFT live in production, pull your Send/Receive ULN config today. Call getConfig() on the endpoint. If requiredDVNCount is 1 and optionalDVNCount is 0, reconfigure before the market does it for you. Anyone can verify any OApp's config on layerzeroscan.com right now. Security is the application's responsibility. LayerZero hands every project a powerful, modular security stack it's on the project to actually use it. Kelp's full RCA is still coming, but the root enabler is already onchain and visible to anyone who looks. Check your configs. Stay safe out there.

@dburrells @CryptoMichNL check $ICP chain-fusion....fck bridges

Agreed. Painful short-term, constructive long-term. The $292M KelpDAO exploit via LayerZero proves bridges remain crypto’s single biggest systemic risk. When restaking + cross-chain + composable DeFi collide, collateral assumptions fail fast and contagion spreads. True progress lies in building resilience: AI anomaly detection, predictive modeling, instant circuit breakers. We’re creating hyper-connected systems. Only the most resilient will attract sustained capital x.com/i/status/20458… #DeFi #CryptoSecurity #Restaking

Massive test for the #DeFi ecosystem with $AAVE hitting the 100% mark. More than $275 million withdrawn from KelpDAO due to an hack. Ultimately, these events are negative in the short-term, but positive in the long-term as the ecosystems will ultimately end up being even more resilient.

@0xGarci it is safer, it reduces the attack surface due to architecture shifted from tech cloud to icp serverless compute. That being said if the contract is poorly written, no architecture can guarantee a no hack policy. As for liquidity, give it some time. It had a rough 5y.

thought $ICP is safer than $NEAR, turns out it's just no liquidity on Icypee 😭

@Aptos4Ever @jerrybanfield bro you buy aptos stfu

@jerrybanfield You are shit clown 🤡 you think that garbage $ICP is the best blockchain I will tell you bitch the $ICP just other empty network No users no transactions It’s zero just hyped from about 600$ and now only 2$

$RENDER Network: All the Risk of a Stock, None of the Rewards.. Token holders think they own a piece of a GPU network... But they don't own the software. The customer relationships. The IP. The business. They own a token that depends entirely on a private company to have any value.

@_kuti_Nelson @BobbyO_ @near_ai @DfinityToday @NEARProtocol You are correct. Its just the market has put them together and they fight for the same piece of the pie, when in reality they are two different products. But let the fight go on, bad PR is the best PR. Lets advertise ourselves. People like fights and gladiators!!!

.@BobbyO_ spent 25 minutes making a case against NEAR's AI positioning. Some of it is technically accurate. Most of the framing is wrong. And one key fact was left out entirely. Thread. x.com/BobbyO_/status…

@ThatTkTho @LongtheKongICP @caffeineai You spread the backend, more canisters but canisters can communicate with each other. This can increase latency but with correct configuration and workload division its possible.

@LongtheKongICP @caffeineai Bro this literally blew my mind. Never asked this particular question before. Im assuming that if you need a lot of storage and need to scale, you just use another canister or something? Im a complete idiot on these details.

Im not a coder or builder. Im just a regular guy and an $ICP enthusiast #8yg. I eventually want to have some sort of online business and honestly this whole time I was thinking it would cost more to run a store on $ICP.....but @caffeineai says that's wrong. Comparison below. 🔥

@ath_sui @DanshanuX i use ICP everyday what are you taking about. I brought all my friends also.

Now the $ICP vs. $NEAR debate is over.

@CryptoMichNL @DanshanuX Misinformation kills confidence, no one inside $ICP cares about near. Its just they try to kill the name before they drown themselves.

@DanshanuX There is no debate, and as a matter of fact. If people are so confident about their holdings, there’s no need to compare those to others, right? That’s a sign of weakness. They can easily coexist next to each other.

@jp_dawg @OWHistory i use it everyday!

@OWHistory No one has ever been using it. Botted to hell and back

literally no one is using #caffeineai right now. Canisters are not moving in the last 7 days.

@_kuti_Nelson No its a full cyber security and privacy issue, if you can't understand that then what are you doing here

So it turns out the $ICP fanbois are angry that you can not store a photo on $NEAR blockchain? Thats it?

@MetaGouverneur @OWHistory there are real use cases, we build apps through an AI Agent for one

@OWHistory until there is any real use case it will continue

> $ICP pumps a little. > $ICP dumps. EVERY FKING TIME.

@jp_dawg @OWHistory congratulations for your AI barbecue

@OWHistory No, but it might actually be a hotdog x.com/jp_dawg/status…

IS $ICP DEAD AT THIS POINT? BE HONEST.

@jp_dawg @Polar86775 @DaoKingdom @BobbyO_ it doesn't matter, oisy don't need intents, the fact that is implemented means there something going things behind the scenes. Our communities try to compare two different systems. On-chain apps will be extremely useful in few yr due to privacy concerns. Try to find the reasoning

@Polar86775 @rnjskywalker @DaoKingdom @BobbyO_ Bros get real it’s a free to use API 🙈

I’m happy to moderate a debate with @BobbyO_ and @jp_dawg on my channel in fair way. Making sure you both can talk and let’s settle which is better internet-computer:native or near:native

@PhantomLady47 @Tanyaelisabeth So you can have all the fun and rights without the responsibility. Just pathetic.

@Tanyaelisabeth So instead you would force your mother to go through a pregnancy she did not want?

I was pro choice until I found out at 20 years old that I lost a sibling through abortion When it hit that close to home I was faced with feelings I had never had before. What do you mean one of us is missing? Abortion has a far greater impact than just a “personal medical choice between a woman and her doctor”, my brother or sister they were a real person, a real human, they shared the same parents as me, they were part of me, of our entire family. Who knows what kind of wonderful things they would have done? the memories, stories, all of it is just gone, never to be allowed to exist because of one selfish decision. Learning this also made me so confused as to why was I allowed to exist and live? Why did she make the choice to allow me to live and yet did not allow my sibling the same right? Why me and not them? You say you love me but had I come at another time would you have decided to not have me? How can you love someone when you can so easily decide if they live or die? How can you truly love a child if you are willing to live without them, and not only that, be the reason they die?

@JoeJonashottie @Tanyaelisabeth it is wrong, you murder someone. Abortions when performed, they basically mutilate the person, doctor has to take inventory of arms, legs, torso, head....

@Tanyaelisabeth That's what I’ve never understood about pro-choice people. If the baby is just a clump of cells & not a baby to them, then why do women feel so guilty after getting an abortion? Guilt usually means you feel like you’ve done something wrong, yet they feel terrible about it.