Noble: ICS v1 Update

Hello Cosmos Community! I’m Jelena Djuric, founder of Noble. It has been so exciting to see the energy and positive feedback from the Cosmos community around the launch of native USDC. There are currently over 22 million USDC issued on Noble and we expect that number to grow significantly in the coming months, particularly as the dYdX Chain begins the migration, enabled by CCTP , of significant collateral from Ethereum to Cosmos. Noble’s goal is to see the IBC ecosystem become a hotbed of activity, with many novel use cases and appchains recognizing both the value and power of the Cosmos stack and the benefits of native stablecoin and RWA liquidity. We have been so encouraged by the positive reception and support Noble has received from other Cosmos appchains around the launch of USDC, including Osmosis, Kujira, Sei and many others . It’s been gratifying to see native USDC become a catalyst for some in the broader crypto ecosystem to recognize the significant benefits of sovereign appchains and IBC. As many of you are aware, Noble’s integration into replicated security, or “ICS v1”, has been an item on the roadmap since the chain’s conception. We initially proceeded with…

Excerpt (1193 of 5637 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thanks for the thoughtful letter, Jelena! We’re super excited about Noble and its success as the Cosmos ecosystem’s home for stablecoins. In fact, the Informal Hub and Hypha Hub Team’s funding for 2024 is mostly in the form of USDC issued on Noble. We’ve been working closely with Noble on their economics as relates to ICS, and the ICS integration on the Noble chain. We appreciate the Noble team’s mature approach to tokenomics, and support their decision to defer ICS launch until they can knock it out of the park for the Hub validator set. We’d like to thank John Letey and the Noble engineering team for the improvements they’ve made to the standalone to consumer migration protocol in preparation for Noble’s launch. The fact that the Noble ICS integration has been perfected will make it fast and easy to launch Noble on ICS when the time comes, and their improvements will make things smoother for other consumer chains in the meantime. We’d also like to thank the validators who participated in Noble’s ICS testnets. Their work will mean that it’s much faster to launch Noble when the time comes, although we’ll be doing additional testnets and a rehearsal at that time. Lastly,…

Excerpt (1198 of 1965 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Glass half empty, huh?

I tend to trust Jehan’s word when he says they’ve been working with Noble to make it a success. It’s better this way instead of them just yeeting the chain and compounding the current economic issues surrounding ICS V1.

Tomato tomahto, I suppose.

Again? This is the second time that Noble delays ICS, but this time with an absurd argument. ICS literally bootstrap new chains and guess what, Noble is a new chain. The argument of transition as mature chain is ridiculous and concerning, my trust for this team is gone. And as for Noble argument, if ICS is for chains with already revenue, let’s just do some BD going to get KAVA on ICS! Enough of being trolled by Noble.

Personally I would rather see Nobel on ICS at a loss in the short to medium term (similar to Neutron and Stride). Having a successful chain using ICS is probably worth the cost at this moment in time. Atom stakers and validators should be able to see the big picture here.

Makes sense. I actually think Noble’s current POA system is more decentralized and secure than any proof of stake system, particularly for a product like USDC issuance.

Jelena647: We think the risk is high that either Noble is not accepted to replicated security at this time or, potentially even worse, Noble joins ICS and is viewed as a failure due to validators not being able to cover their costs. We want to protect Noble as well as the broader Cosmos community against this very significant risk. Thanks for the great work Jelena to bring Circle’s CCTP to the Cosmos ecosystem, the first non-EVM implementation of CCTP, which is critical for the success of the dYdX Chain. We fully support Noble joining as a consumer chain either now or later, if costs are the concern, @jtremback there are plenty of NTRN or ATOM in the community pool to be put to good use for this, bringing native USDC, CCTP and the launch of dYdX is one of the most if not the most significant development so far in Cosmos. The AADAO didn’t think about funding Noble to join as consumer chain by covering validators’ costs? @Youssef The AADAO now funds validators participating in Cosmos testnets, for a critical consumer chain such as Noble, which is necessary for the dYdX chain, we should ensure Noble can join as a consumer chain asap and not delayed because of the costs…

Excerpt (1194 of 1368 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

sunnya97:

Makes sense. I actually think Noble’s current POA system is more decentralized and secure than any proof of stake system, particularly for a product like USDC issuance.

Sunny, the main use case for Noble’s USDC is of course dYdX v4, with Circle’s CCTP launching on the 28th November, the same day as the full trading launch on dYdX, not being a coincidence. dYdX v4 is a major competitor of Osmosis, especially since now you are also trying to offer perps and other trading products. You are a co-founder of Osmosis, so you don’t want to help your competitors. Hence, I take your advices about Noble with a grain of salt. The goal has always been for Noble to join as a consumer chain, and this is better done sooner than later. This shouldn’t be delayed because of costs concerns, the Cosmos hub community pool, AADAO, etc., have more than enough funds to cover validator costs for Noble for many months

The timing of this announcement is very interesting, right after the Atom Halving proposal. Suddenly after Proposal 848 approval and the inflation is cutted in half, for the first time Noble is concerned about ICS revenue and validators sustainability. I see a correlation here, Noble clearly is influenced by Propo 848 because made ICS less appealing, is it Noble going to be the first consumer chain of Atom1, Jae fork? I guess Atom use case is going to be just money after all, congrats 848 team for losing Noble.

Hi Jelena,

Great work! Appreciate what you’ve done for ecosystem.

Economics is a valid concern. You could create a signaling proposal and test your assumptions. Ie, if validators are happy to take the cost early or not. You could see what individual accounts and small/mid/large validators vote for.

This is a business decision on your end as well as validators’ end. Meaning you should look at small/mid validator’s vote and decide based on that.

Bringing this concern is a great way to communicate as you set expectations early on. Which is a lot more important than actual cost.

Thanks for the update. Best wishes.

Watch what you say, please stay calm and don’t tear the community apart.

Is it possible that noble use atom for transactions fee ? You don’t really need a token. If the hub make revenue on tx fee it can cover relayer cost and ics.

Great transparency update Jelena ^.^

Appreciate you keeping the broader community informed rather than sitting on the integration delay without saying anything.

To anyone upset by this announcement, I think it’s important to recognize that there has been a lot of negative dialogue around ICS and validator costs, and this is a very reasonable response to that dialogue.

Much better to have Noble join ICS and be able to present a sustainable revenue model for the hub and its validators than start a relationship with the hub from a place of animosity.

Noble has already brought a lot of value to the ecosystem, and will bring so much more value in the coming months in ways that might not yet be apparent to everyone. Think they deserve a bit of patience here.

20 validators is decentralized enough. When you get more revenue and thus higher AUM is at risk, that is when you need to decentralize more.

Correct decision. Well done.

I am all for Kava on ICS. If it’s possible (ie the Kava team wants it) and it is financially a good deal for Cosmos Hub validators, let’s do it.

Context: The key revelation in the post is the decision to postpone the ICS integration for Noble, shedding light on the economic considerations and challenges associated with the current fee model. It alludes to potential hurdles related to the profitability standards for validators. Analysis: • Nuanced Security Models: The decision by Noble to delay ICS integration showcases the need for more nuanced security models in the blockchain space. It suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach, especially when it comes to the costs associated with ICS, might not be the most suitable for all projects. This highlights a market fit for partial-set security models that can adapt to the economic realities of individual chains. • Prudent Decision for Economic Viability: Noble’s emphasis on ensuring economic success for itself, Hub validators, and ATOM stakers before ICS integration is a prudent move. It acknowledges the economic challenges associated with the current fee model and demonstrates a commitment to protecting stakeholders from potential risks. This decision reflects a thoughtful approach to economic sustainability, aligning with the broader goals of the Cosmos…

Excerpt (1191 of 2363 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

On running an ICS chain being unprofitable for validators: have the team considered running as ICS chain but with higher soft opt-out threshold, like 80% (so only 20% of VP would need to run the node)? That would require less validators to sign, and top validators for sure do earn enough to cover this.

Anyways, thanks a lot for the update!

Govmos:

Reconsidering Validator Count Impact: The post indirectly raises questions about the decision to have 180 validators on the Cosmos Hub. The notion that ICS integration might lead to validators operating at a loss for certain chains prompts a reconsideration of whether a lower validator count could enhance the economic viability of integrating various chains into the Hub’s security model. This highlights the importance of balancing decentralization goals with economic efficiency.

Feel like this is something that needs more attention, anyway. We keep seeing some efforts to continuously expand the set, but it might be approaching the time to consider going back toward 150.

Thank you, @Jelena647 , for sharing the rationale behind Noble decision to delay the migration on Cosmos Hub Replicated Security. As a cosmonaut yourself, you are showing care about the Cosmos Hub by being particularly careful in timing Noble joining ICS. Noble model of not having a token and relying on transaction fees adds an element of uncertainty for validators, even if Neutron is in a similar position due to the absence of token inflation shared with the Hub. Noble concern about validators being unable to cover their costs is undoubtedly legitimate. However, the ICS dynamic goes beyond security and touches on alignment and network effect. We saw Stride and Neutron becoming leading chains of the ecosystem shortly after joining ICS. It is difficult to predict if Noble joining ICS will translate into a net increase that will put the Noble Chain on the right path toward reducing the concerns of validators’ costs. Still, based on the growing TVL of Stride and Neutron and the number of transfers from/to the Cosmos Hub, it is worth considering the positive effect of joining the ATOM Economic Zone. Currently, Noble data doesn’t consider the network effect of joining…

Excerpt (1197 of 2394 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

tknox35:

Feel like this is something that needs more attention, anyway. We keep seeing some efforts to continuously expand the set, but it might be approaching the time to consider going back toward 150.

why that? min commission on its way & ICS is soon upgrading with partial valset feature and more.

Lastly, we are working on several improvements to ICS which will make the economics more flexible for Noble, and all other consumer chains. Improving ICS economics is our main R&D focus for 2024, and we have a few features in the pipeline. Variable commission rates will allow validators to set a higher commission on consumer chains, allowing them the flexibility to recoup their infrastructure costs on consumer chains. Partial Set Security 1 will allow far fewer validators to run infrastructure for consumer chains. This will allow most validators the choice of whether or not to run on a given consumer

i’m not saying we should expand indefinitely, but going back to a smaller valset sounds pessimistic af.

Thanks for sharing this update! I might be in the minority, but I actually do not see any reasons to delay the ICS migration from the Hub side. I haven’t heard of operators not wanting to onboard Noble specifically, is there really a fear that the onboarding proposal would get rejected? -Noble was funded from the beginning with the expectation it was becoming an ICS chain and would always be in addition to whatever other chains are currently attempting to onboard. -Noble doesn’t have a token, but it actually has one of the more clear revenue models. With a % from transactions being taken by Noble, I think its important for the Hub to onboard Noble as soon as possible in order to start bringing in that portion of revenue in the form of much desired USDC. -Noble and Neutron were designated as the premier CC that would lead to the adoption of more consumer chains. These two chains if any are already expected to be consumers without the primary focus being revenue for the hub, but having useful products that gets momentum going. The continued delay by Noble adds more of a chance that the chain doesn’t ever migrate under the problem of waiting for ICS to be sustainable, when…

Excerpt (1198 of 1659 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Noble flips Optimism on the USDC rankings!

2023-12-15_110749769×807 93.8 KB

any responses for us? @Jelena647

Noble flips Algorand

2023-12-22_040553717×284 33.4 KB

noble will drop us and not accept ICS

Cosmic_Validator:

You are a co-founder of Osmosis, so you don’t want to help your competitors. Hence, I take your advices about Noble with a grain of salt.

Why would it behoove Osmosis to harm Cosmos-native USDC?? Osmosis and DYDX both benefit from Cosmos-native USDC.

If you want to see Noble on ICS sooner, putting up a signaling proposal to give noble confidence that an ICS proposal would pass under current maturity levels.

sorry, what? not sure to understand why I shouldn’t share my opinion

Hi @Jelena647

Would you have an update for us, specifically regarding timing:

Jelena647:

Ideally, Noble is mature enough to be admitted to the AEZ some time in mid-2024. Although timing is impossible to predict and circumstances always change, this is a target the Noble core team is striving for internally.

Further, do you have any concerns with ICS v2 that you are working through? When can we expect Noble to Join the AEZ?

Thank you

Please don’t put pressure on Jelena. Noble will join ICS2 whenever they feel like the product is ready.