[Draft Proposal] Signaling Proposal: Approval to Onboard Noble as a Consumer Chain to the Cosmos Hub

Change log • 2024-01-12 Created initial post Summary This signaling proposal seeks the Cosmos Hub community’s endorsement for the onboarding of Noble as a Consumer Chain. It aims to ensure validators’ support for the Noble network and to instill confidence in the Noble team for expediting the ICS onboarding process. • Seeking the Cosmos Hub community’s approval to onboard Noble as a Consumer Chain • Giving the Noble team the confidence to expedite ICS onboarding. Details Noble is the premier asset issuance chain within the Cosmos ecosystem and stands as the primary issuer of native USDC for Cosmos/IBC with plans to expand its asset offerings. Since its inception, Noble has aimed to join the Atom Economic Zone as a Consumer Chain, utilizing the Cosmos Hub’s Interchain Security feature. Transitioning Noble from its current Proof of Authority (PoA) security model to a Consumer Chain is a significant milestone in their roadmap . To accommodate Noble’s needs and concerns, teams working on the Cosmos Hub and ICS have modified the slashing mechanism , addressing key challenges. The primary obstacle now is to ensure the Noble team receives affirmative assurance of…

Excerpt (1199 of 2582 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Simple problems require simple answers. We will support Noble’s onboarding. Period. We will be happy to debate with any person who thinks otherwise.

No brainer yes.

Noble not joining as a consumer chain would be the breaking point for many stakers.

100% support. Send it on chain

Full support to the Noble team

once Noble is on onboarded, and once Megablocks are live,

should we be concerned by a future where Cosmos Hub validators will censor what Circle decides to censor?

Support the Noble integration

Yes yes yes yes yes yes please accept the big yes .

Support.

Question…
How would the Noble chain actually utilize shared security?
I would think whatever chain the USDC is on at that point would use that chains validators?

While Noble has achieved rapid success within the Cosmos ecosystem, I believe they should wait until the Cosmos Hub matures further before partnering for shared security. Perhaps postpone onboarding until the Atom validators are in an empowered position and the new tokenomics proposals have been put on chain. Are there urgent needs to onboard Noble now, when Mesh security and other promising shared security technologies are on the horizon?

As stated, the plan has been for Noble to join ICS since its inception. This is much more important than any tokenomics proposal, and no tokenomics change will make a difference in the Cosmos Hub<>Noble relationship. Continuing to spend most of our time and energy on things that aren’t as much of a prioirity is only holding the Hub and the AEZ back. The Hub can also take part in other security mechanisms as they become available and offer that to their consumers along with its own offerings. Noble would be a chain that receives the full security of the hub either way, so not sure what level of maturity you are referring to?

Absolutely, yes. Super excited for Noble to be a consumer chain.

Full support noble’s integration as a consumer chain. ur welcome

Thanks for your response and for clarifying the priorities behind Noble’s onboarding, Tricky. I understand the long-term vision for this, and I agree that it’s a significant step for the Atom Economic Zone. However, I wouldn’t say tokenomics are entirely irrelevant to the Hub-Noble relationship. A stable and mature tokenomic model can play a crucial role in ensuring overall ecosystem stability, benefiting all participants, including ATOM validators and Noble. Proposed changes to ATOM’s inflation and their potential impact on validators’ rewards deserves careful consideration before moving forward in my opinion. I wouldn’t want to see Noble withdraw from RS due to new issues arising from inflation changes or other factors. While the potential of replicated security is exciting, its long-term viability is still a topic of discussion, being a very new technology. The recent “Atom Welfare Zone” memes highlight validators’ anxieties about the financial burden of being forced to validate new chains. I’m unsure if recent upgrades have fully addressed these concerns, and I believe the upcoming opt-in shared security model holds great promise. Testing its effectiveness before…

Excerpt (1189 of 1240 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Noble is close to having $100 million in USDC issued now. Strong YES.

Could you please explain how the tokenomics on the hub aren’t mature enough and how changes to that would directly affect Noble? I’m trying to understand your argument more but having trouble with that. Not sure if there’s a misunderstanding about the ICS model in general or if what you’re meaning is still unrelated to Noble onboarding as an ICS chain.

As a validator, from responses here, and in talks with with other fellow validators, Noble is unique and there’s not much anxiety about onboarding them.

There are efforts being made that can be done in parallel to the onboarding of Noble, here is an example of one.

The economics between Noble & the Hub will be worked out separately no matter what tokenomic changes are discussed or eventually made.

I appreciate you bringing your feedback to the topic and having a dialogue about this!

Yes would love to have Noble as a consumer chain.

Full support from me.

Fully Supported and looking forward to to all community endorsement of this proposal

Support this. Let’s help to make it official.

Its cute to see some of the validators who were saying that ICS is a burden, but Noble is not =)

Here is our 101. Yes. We will onboard Noble as an ICS chain. It is our responsibility as a Cosmos hub validator to do so. A validator should support chain decisions, unless they go against their or common sense values.

Are we pro adding another ICS chain (no matter what it is) - fully against it at this moment. Will we add Noble as ICS if the cahin decides to do so? Yep, we will.

serejandmyself:

Are we pro adding another ICS chain (no matter what it is) - fully against it at this moment. Will we add Noble as ICS if the cahin decides to do so? Yep, we will.

Your last part is the cutest

Well. We are cute, until given water too late at night =)

Noble is helping Cosmos to grow, I do not see a valid reason for other validators to reject the proposal.
Definitely a big YES.

Welcome to the forums @0xXeno

I would prefer to see, USDT instead of USDC at Noble

USDT is issued exclusively on Kava currently.

I support this proposal.

Has there been any word from the Noble team about their desire to join ICS?

I know there is Ethos coming up soon which uses ETH security - so maybe they are waiting for this rather than ICS.

It’s clear that most validators are in favour of Noble on ICS so It would be great to see if Noble are still interested in ICS.

tom:

once Noble is on onboarded, and once Megablocks are live,

should we be concerned by a future where Cosmos Hub validators will censor what Circle decides to censor?

hey

i re-up this don’t cancel me plz :>,

can someone educate me on this? @jtremback

USDT will not use the same issuer as USDC. Tether has said it.

Circle’s censorship policies have nothing to do with the tech they use. Circle is on many chains. The details of their implementation on Cosmos really don’t matter. When they censor an account it happens on all chains because ultimately the funds are with Circle. Every USDC transfer happens through Circle’s CCTP. The blocking would happen there. CCTP is implemented on Axelar. So technically the censorship is in the Circle’s implementation of the Axelar protocol which they call CCTP (cross chain transfer protocol). In any case, Cosmos Hub validators aren’t involved in Circle’s censorship.

hi @jelena , has Noble team decided anything?