DFINITY Founder Accuses NEAR Intents of Using Proprietary Cryptographic Technology

DFINITY founder Dominic Williams has accused NEAR Protocol of using proprietary cryptographic technology without authorization in its NEAR Intents platform. The allegations, made on October 22, 2026, center on threshold ECDSA algorithms developed for the Internet Computer blockchain.

Williams claims that NEAR incorporated DFINITY’s research into its cross-chain infrastructure without proper authorization or attribution. The accusations raise questions about intellectual property rights, blockchain security, and competition between decentralized networks.

DFINITY’s Cryptographic Research at Center of Dispute

According to Williams, the disputed technology involves ECDSA additive key derivation and presigning algorithms documented in a DFINITY research paper published in April 2022.

The research, authored by cryptographers Jens Groth and Victor Shoup, examines techniques for improving the efficiency and security of distributed digital signatures. DFINITY originally developed related technology to support interoperability between the Internet Computer and Ethereum.

Threshold ECDSA allows multiple computers to generate cryptographic signatures without requiring any individual participant to control the complete private key. This approach helps blockchain applications authorize transactions across different networks while reducing dependence on centralized custodians.

Williams claims DFINITY’s implementation can accelerate certain signing operations by approximately three times compared with alternative approaches. He argues that NEAR Intents benefited from these improvements without obtaining appropriate permission.

Williams Questions NEAR’s Decentralization Claims

Beyond intellectual property concerns, Williams challenged the security and decentralization of NEAR’s implementation.

He alleged that NEAR deployed the disputed technology across approximately eight servers, raising concerns about the distribution of signing authority. However, NEAR’s technical disclosures describe a broader multiparty computation network involving 17 independent operators.

Williams also alleged that a former DFINITY employee contributed to transferring the technology into NEAR’s infrastructure. These claims remain unverified, and no independent determination of misconduct has emerged.

Furthermore, Williams pointed to GitHub development records suggesting NEAR has been modifying its signing algorithms. He interpreted those changes as a possible response to concerns surrounding DFINITY’s technology.

Potential Legal Implications for Blockchain Development

Williams warned that the alleged unauthorized use could carry legal consequences and negatively affect DFINITY and Internet Computer stakeholders.

However, the existence of publicly available cryptographic research does not automatically establish exclusive ownership or infringement. Any legal dispute would require examination of applicable intellectual property protections, licensing agreements, and implementation details.

NEAR had not issued a formal public response to the specific allegations in the reporting reviewed.

The dispute highlights growing tensions surrounding blockchain innovation as competing networks develop cross-chain infrastructure. Its outcome could influence how cryptocurrency projects approach cryptographic research, software licensing, and technical attribution.