Creating an Execution Layer for Cosmos Hub: Integrating Cosmwasm in a Secure Way

Introduction One of the biggest debates on the Cosmos Hub is whether to add Cosmwasm smart contract capabilities into Cosmos Hub. The main debate is whether to compromise security and neutrality of the Hub for the additional use cases and utility, with different proposals being rejected proving the point such as: [PROPOSAL #69][REJECTED] Include CosmWasm in Rho Upgrade Signaling/Text Change log 2022-04-27 formatting changes 2022-04-25 LAST CALL 2022-04-07 Initial proposal for comment Include CosmWasm in Rho Upgrade Summary Signaling proposal to include CosmWasm on the Cosmos Hub in v8-Rho upgrade targeting Q2 2022. Further details and discussion at [PROPOSAL #69][REJECTED] Include CosmWasm in Rho Upgrade . Details This is a signaling proposal to include CosmWasm in the v8-Rho upgrade. The Cosmos Hub team at Interchain GmbH has done technical feasibility research by sp… I do agree that Cosmwasm does add potential security risks or attack vectors that bad actors could take advantage of to halt or exploit the Hub that can lead to removal of the positioning of the Hub as a ICS Provider. I also heavily agree that the Hub is being left behind…

Excerpt (1196 of 8996 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I like the phrasing. Execution Layer. Maybe this is a bit different than Neutron. How does Celestia fit in here? I have an idea of how I would like to see an execution layer architected with the cosmos-sdk and it would be different than Neutron. What kind of design requirements does your hypothetical execution layer have or what architecture are you proposing with this suggestion?

The governance model of chains (which I’ve been critical of for a while - a homogenous cryptographic oligarchy of sorts) and capital allocation of community pool resources could be revamped with something like World Coin authentication. 1 Person - 1 Vote or 1 Person + weighted votes on what ever specified parameters.

A well thought out EL would be an advantageous addition to the Cosmos Hub in my opinion.

jasonsprouse: Maybe this is a bit different than Neutron. How does Celestia fit in here? I believe that any independent chain will not align 100% with the Cosmos Hub since it has its own token and governance model, and even if in the short term they may align, they are very likely to diverge in the long term. jasonsprouse: What kind of design requirements does your hypothetical execution layer have or what architecture are you proposing with this suggestion? A Cosmos SDK chain rebuilt to remove governance, inflation, staking and basically defer all of this over to ATOM and the Hub. An easy IBC bridge to migrate between ATOM and ELATOM (just a naming) 1:1. Might need to refactor nodes to validate transactions and store the data and proof on the Hub and allow for any dispute for a certain period of time through certain IBC/ICS standards. I believe this could lead to an architecture where app chains have 2 layers (governance and security → The Hub and execution → the EL) where the EL is faster layer where smart contracts can be executed where the GSL (Governance and Security Layer) is more robust and secure. This will allow more testing and features to…

Excerpt (1198 of 1328 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Georges_Chouchani: A Cosmos SDK chain rebuilt to remove governance, inflation, staking and basically defer all of this over to ATOM and the Hub. An easy IBC bridge to migrate between ATOM and ELATOM (just a naming) 1:1. Might need to refactor nodes to validate transactions and store the data and proof on the Hub and allow for any dispute for a certain period of time through certain IBC/ICS standards. Two key design factors for my support would be - ephemeral and parallel processing. If the execution layer scales to ∞ transactions and processes those transactions in parallel I would think that would be an optimum design for a Cosmos Hub Execution layer. The only protocol I know of that is working on something as such is filecoin with Interplantery Consensus. As of right now IPC uses CometBFT so this approach should be a relatively straight forward for an EL. - EDIT - Also the Regulated Liability Network I mentioned in the previous post, which was about utilizing the sdk to create an ephemeral stack for a product like this described execution layer. ConsensusLab is working on a fast consensus as a module for filecoin. I’m not sure if this will affect the utilization…

Excerpt (1198 of 2221 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Introduction: First and foremost, we want to clarify that we don’t intend to represent the entire community but rather share our perspective on the matter. Correct us if we’re mistaken, but is this topic proposing the construction of a SDK Consumer chain for the Hub consisting of a Cosmwasm module and a custom-tailored Governance module that uses ATOMs as a voting token ? Analysis: Assuming the answer is yes, it becomes evident that this proposal poses direct competition to Neutron’s chain, which already holds a similar market share. The proposed changes include using ATOM or LS versions of ATOM as a gas token to compensate validators, essentially turning it into a utility token. This strategic move is intriguing as it aims to add more value to the asset and generate new types of demands within the existing supply. Still, it may pose a few underlying problems: • Shared Security Concerns: However, there’s a significant drawback to this approach. It contradicts a crucial aspect of ATOM today – the shared security aspect. Directly competing with an existing consumer chain, such as Neutron, poses serious threats. This concern extends beyond Neutron, as one could argue that…

Excerpt (1198 of 3348 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Govmos: custom-tailored Governance module that uses ATOMs as a voting token Not a tailored governance model but no gov model at all as all governance is deferred to the main Hub in that instance, since the EL is only an extension of it. Govmos: poses direct competition to Neutron’s chain, which already holds a similar market share At the end of the day, I believe it will be a competition to other app chains in the ecosystem since the Hub will have its own smart contract layer. But both can coexist at the end of the day since the Hub is a provider of security for Neutron and that won’t change the fact. Govmos: The Hub, in contrast, has adopted an initial cooperative stance, advocating for the app-chain thesis to segregate different services into distinct sovereign chains. Entities then choose whether or not to partner with the Hub in exchange for its primary service: security. I agree that currently the Hub has taken a different stance in its neutrality and the security provider for the Cosmos, but the Execution Layer came from a potential risk that in the future that assumption may not be true anymore as another chain may surpass it…

Excerpt (1198 of 2416 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

jasonsprouse:

Two key design factors for my support would be - ephemeral and parallel processing. If the execution layer scales to ∞ transactions and processes those transactions in parallel I would think that would be an optimum design for a Cosmos Hub Execution layer.

Agreed, as an extension, and without posing any security risk to the Hub, scaling can be infinite on that end with the main goal of providing proof of the transactions to the Hub.

it seems pretty good idea, the principal counter argument was the security of the hub … if this does not involve in it, it is a big Yes for me. Consumer chain can leave ICS in the futur, what is the alternativ in the case of neutron leave ? dont know

Guinch_Roze:

. Consumer chain can leave ICS in the futur, what is the alternativ in the case of neutron leave ?

This is one question, and the other question is if ATOM is able to sustain the main provider of security for the ecosystem? If the price keeps on dipping, stakers and validators may move on to more lucrative chains over time.

atom must not be just the security provider of cosmos … atom has to be more. PSS, megablock, AAT, POL on the way

Thank you for addressing the mains pinpoints of our post one by one. There’s still one critical factor that we think could be elucidated further for anyone reading us. Georges_Chouchani: Finally one last point is that due to consumer chains such as Neutron etc… having their own governance model, it is not certain that there will be long term alignment between the Hub and consumer chains (unless I am wrong here) while an execution layer, having only the ATOM token and no governance basically guarantees it. 1. Being “Unforkable” Ultimately, this concept ties back to the “forkable theory,” rooted in the notion that any open-source blockchain can be replicated instantly—either as an identical version or an improved separate version. The sustained value of an open-source project over time hinges on its ability to be “unforkable.” In other words, while anyone could duplicate the software, achieving meaningful competition would remain incredibly challenging. 2. Symbiosis Each replicated security consumer chain plays a vital role in the global AEZ (liquid staking and EL for now). In exchange for a share of their revenue, the Hub provides them with its entire…

Excerpt (1193 of 2998 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you for the elaborate response, just wanted to clarify a few ideas about my main point. Govmos: If Neutron were to ever leave ICS, it could be promptly replaced by a duplicate chain like the EL proposed in this conversation. I completely agree here. The main point of EL was not to be a replacement or competition to any consumer chain out there, and it does not mean that if the Hub does actually have an EL that it should not provide security to other consumer chains such as Neutron. I think my thoughts move more along the line of: Since consumer chains will offer X% of their transaction fees + possibly an inital allocation to the Hub validators and community pool, making it a viable idea for the Hub to be the security provider, wouldn’t it make sense for the Hub to have as well a EL where it retains 100% of their transaction fees and guarantees alignment + participation in IBC relaying in the future between dApps? Also I have some theoretical questions that would be interesting to see your (and community’s) answer on: • On the long run, is it possible for another chain such as Celestia to become a better or more viable security provider than the…

Excerpt (1196 of 2209 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thanks for clarifying some potential ambiguity. There are definitely ways in which this proposition could come to life without direct competition to Neutron. This would potentially include governance specific smart contracts as well as the covenants and other types of Hub PoL treasuries which also require wasm capabilities. This could be deployed as a permissioned smart contract environment only targeting governance approved use-cases limited to the Hub’s core mandate. Therefore this would cause no overlap with the existing wasm consumer chain which offers permissionless deployment. In this case, your discussion falls into the realm of the propositions made by Binary builders with their Atom Alignment Treasury’s design (AATs). More context on the matter on this specific paragraph: Discussion: AEZ Growth & the ATOM Alignment Treasury TL;DR, they proposed eerily similar implementation options as the one stated in this post. Either to run smart contract via Neutron, or consider adding permissioned wasm under the Hub umbrella. Running this module as a separate chain would maintain Gaia’s minimalist approach and therefore we would agree to include this in the list of options.…

Excerpt (1196 of 3143 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗