FYI, Ren is different from RenBTC. This vote is for Ren, the token that helps RenVM function to convert BTC to RenBTC in a non-custodial way.
Ren is currently available for deposit/collateral on Aave, renBTC is not
3 Likes
@dudesahn is correct, we aren’t concerned with this vote as Ren and RenBTC are different
Absolutely. Thanks @dudesahn @uhmpeps ! I posted too quick and misread it as “RenBTC” when it’s just “Ren”. (Love to have both btw!) 
2 Likes
I’m in favor - but whats the reason for the dissenting vote?
2 Likes
I posted this to the Discord and @uhmpeps is going to follow further investigation, but I think it ought to be linked here too for the benefit of this discussion.
https://twitter.com/chrisblec/status/1298650297154314241?s=21
It appears that the RenBTC bridge is currently a single wallet controlled by the developers, not an address generated by multiparty computation. If so, how does this impact the assessment of RenBTC’s decentralization, security, and the preference of RenBTC over WBTC?
5 Likes
azToday at 10:37 PM
I’ll reserve judgment til further investigation but at first glance it doesnt look concerning according the the roadmap
It does seem like a salty wanchain psyop
rob_moseToday at 10:40 PM
Fair enough. At this point though, is RenBTC safe? If it’s a wallet controlled by one or two developers, we ought to be asking questions about their OpSec etc., no? And this all means that wBTC, while centralized, is likely far more secure.
Further, according to their roadmap / github, it’s public information according to their current stage of development. Can you first do some deeper research instead of posting tweets?
Do you know when they launched mainnet?
Sorry, I apologize if this wasn’t welcome. I was under the impression that this was actually far from common knowledge.
To put this all into context, I’ve been excitedly watching the discussions around a BTC vault here for a while now. And I didn’t think that the decision to move forward with renBTC was based on an awareness of this knowledge. Hence, that everyone here would appreciate the heads up.
To answer your question, I believe the Ren mainnet launched in May. I’m not sure how this is relevant, though. I’m not trying to rubbish Ren, which is an exciting project. My concern was simply about the current security of the renBTC asset.
7 Likes
I agree with @Rob when it comes to concerns that people in this thread were not aware of the current status of renBTC and if its actually decentralized (in its current state). The proposal read that renBTC is decentralized:
RenBTC is a tokenized representation of BTC on the Ethereum blockchain. It is an ERC20, and backed 1:1 with real BTC locked in RenVM, a decentralized custodian.
and wBTC is not:
wBTC has pretty good growth rates as seen on defipulse but as a custodial solution is hampered by trust-based systems which BTC holders do not by and large feel comfortable with.
I like renBTC and their roadmap. But it would be foolish of us not to address that in its current state renBTC is NOT decentralize, but it will be one day. If the reason we are wanting to create and onboard a second btc vault is to offer a decentralized option, we should wait for renBTC to get to that point.
Also, we already have renBTC exposure with the crvSBTC vault as it’s split between sBTC, renBTC, wBTC. I’m not sure we need to rush into a 2nd BTC vault.
8 Likes
Can you please share the specific evidence regarding this?
I wont clutter up the feed with screenshots and multiple links. If you go to the tweets and reply’s page and look over some of Loong’s (CTO of Ren) answer to questions, he confirms multiple times, renBTC is not currently decentralized. https://twitter.com/bzlwang
Again, I am not against rentBTC or its future, I used them to convert my BTC. It’s just something to consider.
4 Likes
This is problematic, but I think they were somewhat open about it from the start. What is the timeline for them to become more decentralized with their btc holding address?
This really seems like a high effort attempt at FUD by wanchain. Not claiming rightness or wrongness at this point.
And keepcoin taking pot shots on that thread too, I’m still looking into it
UPDATE: Ignore, debunked. Thanks
Matt luongo is devops199fan… that’s interesting
Yeah they’ve been up front about the facts so far
and have been clear on their site about phases.
Not concerned. They’ve been doing the right thing and continue to.
Haters hate to see them win.
----- posted a comment
“Hey guys you are doing great work so far and we support you and appreciate you doing the right thing, please just try to communicate better and align your statements where you can. I know it’s tough as developers but this is part of your product ok? Thanks.”
2 Likes
It’s not a decentralised custodian yet
https://twitter.com/ChrisBlec/status/1298691807522500610
4 Likes
So just because renBTC got greenlit as collateral on Maker. It might not be available as Maker collateral for 2 months.
Have they been upfront about the facts, though? “There is a semi decentralized network of Darknodes called Greycore” (website) ≠ “ That address is effective under custody of our team” (Cassetti).
Regardless, the decision ought not to be based on whether RenBTC intends to be decentralized in the future, or even whether the team are honest guys, but on an assessment of the token as it is now.
Currently I see only one advantage to RenBTC over WBTC, and that’s being able to mint RenBTC without KYC. I think this ought to be carefully balanced against the counterparty risk of the Ren team, who are not regulated custodians, holding the keys to 9000 BTC.
6 Likes
I am against. This strategy is not optimal for renBTC and it is premature to add. Please don’t rush vaults and strategies. Please vote no for now. This is a rushed strategy that does not consider the highest yield nor the best integration path for renBTC.
33 Likes