ATOM Wars / Hydro Platform: Funding Third-Party Audit

Authors: Simply Staking TL;DR - Simply Staking will commission Oak Security to conduct a third-party audit of the Hydro/ATOM Wars code. This will follow a similar format and process as our third-party audit conducted last year on Replicated Security (Prop 687) . Background This proposal aims to use community pool funds to commission a third-party audit for the Hydro/ATOM Wars codebase. Hydro is a bidding & governance platform for the efficient deployment of liquidity across the Interchain. Hydro allows projects to bid for deployments of ATOM (and other tokens) liquidity under their control and for the benefit of all ATOM holders. For more information, we advise you to review the recent Forum Post from Thyborg here . As we saw in our last proposal regarding an audit of key Cosmos Infrastructure (ICS) in Proposal #687 , It Is always key to get a second set (or more) of auditors who had no involvement in the designing and building of the code to audit the codebase. This will allow for unbiased vulnerabilities to be disclosed (if any), again, as we saw in Proposal #687 . Since Hydro will have an element of transferring funds, we need to ensure that the funds will be…

Excerpt (1195 of 3997 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Obviously an easy yes.

Thanks for coordinating this!

Thanks for your leadership on this Damien!

Hey all!

Seems like this is relatively uncontroversial but just wanted to weigh in to give some context on Oak Security.

I lead grants at the Osmosis Grants Program. We’ve worked with Oak for the last 2 years as our primary auditor for our grantees and have found them to be fantastic auditors, and incredibly professional.

Given the importance of Hydro to the future of the hub, this spend feels like a no-brainer.

We express our support for this proposal, with the exception of the 15% fee, which appears excessively high for the proposed task. Anything below 10% would be more fitting in this context and more in line with the standards. We recommend reducing it to reinforce a commitment to fair intermediary pricing. While we won’t object to the proposal if you don’t, lowering the fee would demonstrate your commitment to enduring ethical standards.

Hey everyone,

So as an update, the Proposal seems like it is passing as we have reached the quorum quite comfortably.

Unfortunately, we have had rather bad market conditions during the proposal which has caused the total value of the proposal under what the actual cost of the audit is (including the 10% buffer we included to handle normal market volatility )

With this being said, we are exploring a follow-up proposal to serve as a ‘top-up’ of roughly $7.5K-$10K in ATOM for the Initial proposal so we have the funds ready to fulfil the quote as soon as possible. A reminder that all unused funds would be sent back to the community pool.

If there are any objections, please raise them here. Since this is a rather time-sensitive matter, we will be looking to put this up as soon as we can.