Skip to content

ICP Blockchain Draws Criticism for Centralization and Vulnerability Concerns

Blockchain CFN
  • Justin Bons critiques ICP’s weak security and lack of shared security, exposing users to high risks from targeted attacks.
  • ICP’s claims of infinite scalability are misleading, as inter-subnet communication and DKG create computational bottlenecks.
  • Bons praises ICP’s governance and token economics but urges better transparency and stronger shared security measures.

The Internet Computer Protocol (ICP) has been heavily scrutinised by Justin Bons, founder of Cyber Capital, for its centralization and security flaws. According to Bons, ICP’s structure leaves it highly vulnerable to targeted attacks. He argues that its modular design lacks shared security, making it weaker than other blockchain networks like Polkadot (DOT) and Avalanche (AVAX).

ICP’s Security Vulnerabilities

ICP operates through independent subnets rather than a single blockchain. Bons highlights that these subnets lack shared security, exposing users to risks. Security depends on a small number of validators—sometimes as few as 13 nodes—making it susceptible to attacks. 

Moreover, these nodes are hosted in publicly disclosed data centers, increasing the likelihood of targeted breaches. Consequently, Bons contends that ICP disconnects staking from the “cost to attack,” relying instead on trust, which contradicts the decentralization ethos of blockchain technology.

Additionally, Bons critiques ICP’s claims of infinite scalability. He explains that inter-subnet communication and distributed key generation (DKG) introduce computational bottlenecks. This undermines ICP’s marketing promises, proving that its scalability is neither infinite nor unique compared to other blockchains.

Misleading Marketing and Suggested Reforms

Beyond technical issues, Bons accuses ICP of employing misleading marketing tactics. He points to terms like “canisters” for smart contracts and “nervous systems” for DAOs as unnecessary jargon. Bons suggests that these terminologies aim to confuse users rather than foster innovation. He also questions ICP’s claims of solving the oracle problem and bringing native smart contracts to Bitcoin, calling these assertions deceptive.

However, Bons acknowledges certain strengths in ICP’s design. He praises its on-chain governance model and token economics, including its deflationary fee-burning mechanism. He also notes efforts to address shared security but argues for a more robust sharding approach to decentralize the network.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your own research before investing.

Shares:

Related Posts

market news contact