Yeah, you may be right. I read about the Compound founder mentioning KYC on his Twitter page, and some of his users being upset, maybe it was not implemented for users. I never looked into it.
On another note…
There are new “soft ID” verification like Polygon ID is creating for DAPPS to use on connected applications, where the ID is stored securely with the user but can be verified by DAPPS, Maybe a connection like that is worth while. I’m sure we can connect to the verification somehow. This is worth a hard look for a connection.
https://twitter.com/0xPolygonID
Steps we need to take to gain users back…
We have been the “front line” application, along with OMM, that is subject to a “battlefield” of hackers. The “hackers” have partially won against us and we have to request help for more funding so our DAPPS don’t get totally destroyed, they need help. OMM and Balanced need more, a lot more financial assistance from ICON in the form of grants. We are their “front line” applications and to this point we have been underfunded and easy pickings for these attackers. If ICONs main DAPPs can’t handle security properly, who would trust ICON to connect blockchains. I would be willing to interpret there is immense interchange of employing the same programmers, developers that are creating these new XCALL features… they most likely helped create Balanced and OMM in some way behind the scenes. I interpret “ICON Foundation” to be in the “command center” limiting their risk of attacks and hacks. I also interpret Balanced and OMM are the underfunded front line workers getting destroyed.
I think our first step is to ask for a security grant from ICON to get audited by the same companies as Compound and Binance Smart Chain. We have no trust in FYEO’s ability at this point. We need a legitimate audit to earn trust for the platform and since Balanced is the heartbeat of all of ICON DAPPs it is money well spent.
Here is who compound was audited by…. Why did we not choose one of these companies to begin with?
Options could be TrailofBits, or OpenZellen for an ICON grant funded audit, if we are serious about becoming a legit DAO we need legit audits by the big boys that do them for the top DAO’s.
Talk about being a cross chain DAO is silly at this point, we need to focus on security over the next year, not about leading “dangerous cross chain DAO” missions. We have no armor for these missions, we need to head back to “ICON Headquarters” and get “real assistance” against future hackers.
Brian, I do agree with the options you mentioned as well for security. I just think we need a total security reset, we need to spend months working on safety, there is no need to rush.
I am one of the biggest fans and users of Balanced:). I have nothing but respect for Scott, the Balanced workers, their dedication and work ethic is unbelievable. I think the ICON Foundation has some of the best intentions of any organization in this space in crypto, which is why I trust ICON. My hope is for them to get behind OMM and Balanced in these times, which they are, to an extent, but we need much, much, much more.
Another successful attack on Balanced means all of ICON Sub Token projects are worthless, years of coding to make an incredible cross chain DEX app to showcase ICON’s ability, gone. Users funds will be gone as we have depleted our DAO with this hack.
*** The biggest headache would be this…. All of Balanced users would stampede and cry to the ICON Foundation for years on end if they lost their money due to a breach as OMM and Balanced were airdropped tokens to the community by teams and individuals that are highly, highly connected to ICON. Same workers, programmers, leaders, different DAPP name…. OMM and Balanced. This happened all over the place with mid cap coins as a way to grow projects. They had to do this because we are not big like an ETH. No one would start or invest in OMM or Balanced if they were not not highly interconnected with ICON. *** This was genius thinking by the ICON Foundation by creating OMM and Balanced using most of the same people but in the same time limiting the risk from ICON and $ICX to offer and sell new tokens with new use cases to the community. I bought OMM and Balanced when we were $30 million and $50 million market cap tokens. I know the history I believed in the growth story and still do.
-
A security grant from ICON seems to be in the best interest of everyone, not just Balanced
-
A replenishment of the DAO grant should come in second as we have earned that with all the services we provide to everyone in ICON.
Once we have completed steps one and two we can start to consider being on the “front lines” again, we always need to make sure our users are protected before trying to accomplish new technological advances.
In addition to a connection with a Polygon ID type service, wait, wait a second here, couldn’t the ICON Foundation create a DAPP ID service that is encrypted for privacy for use on DAPPS like Polygon ID has done. Remember, ICON was in all of the news making ID services through their blockchain during Covid. Why not create a WEB 3 ID system that can help secure its DAPPS and cross chain efforts.
Also, as a DAO we can limit each ICON address to a trust scores. A high trust score wallet can have a $10k daily withdrawal limit that has been active on Balanced for over a year. Mid level trust score wallets can have a $500 withdrawal limit for newer, limited use. Recently created accounts will have the lowest trust score and a $250 withdrawal limit. Then we also only allow 25 new ICON Balanced addresses per day to limit an attacker to using multiple wallets. We aren’t getting more than that in new users daily so that should not be an issue.