$NEAR vs $ICP Dom may be right about the cryptography, but he's losing the only scoreboard that pays anyone. > Chain TVL: $244M vs $12M > Below ATH: -76% vs -99.7% > Market cap / TVL: ~25x vs ~100x > Since Feb : 4.3x vs flat 👉 What Dom actually said about NEAR Dom shared a PhD engineer's review calling Confidential Intents a permissioned instance with trusted operators, no public code and no public operator list. He later escalated to calling it snake oil and floated legal action over vetKeys, putting his odds at 70% to 85%, though all of that remains allegation. 👉 Where the criticism lands and where not On the trust model he has a point, since a private shard with a handful of permissioned validators and a TEE bridge is not threshold cryptography. Disclosure is weaker ground, because NEAR described the permissioned shard and TEE bridge publicly from its February launch. 👉 What the market chose to pay for Confidential Intents now holds $171M, up 6.4x since June, though part of that growth was incentivized. All of ICP holds about $12M. 👉 My take You could argue users never asked for the purest design, they asked for private swaps with compliance built in, and NEAR shipped that first. Dom's engineering points deserve a technical answer, but a founder attacking a rival from 99.7% below ATH will always get read as marketing. ICP's own docs also say standard subnet state is readable by node operators, so neither side offers privacy by default. If you had to pick, does cryptographic purity still matter when the market keeps paying for the practical version?