Why do we need a constitution?

Preamble : First of all, I think it’s important to introduce myself so that you can understand both why I take this point of view and what potential biases I might have as I write this text. I am currently a third-year public law student in France, where I mainly study state organization, international relations, and constitutional law. I am also passionate about understanding blockchain systems, and for the past few years, I have been particularly involved in studying the Cosmos Hub. I have built a solid foundation for analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the new Cosmos Hub models, especially with projects like Hydro, Forge, and the various levels of the PSS that form ICS. On the same topic as what we will discuss today, I have developed an idea that I continue to refine privately, and an older version is available on the cosmos hub forum . I believe this information will give you an idea of the legitimacy I have, but also my limitations, in addressing the topics to follow. That said, I am not the focus of this post, so let’s get back to the topic at hand! Introduction: The purpose of this introduction is to demonstrate that the Cosmos Hub stands out from other…

Excerpt (1191 of 8196 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I agree with you

It is a good idea to have a constitution for the hub

I second the comment above.

Through time, the support and inevitable need for a constitution, especially with how things continue moving forward, becomes painfully more apparent. Thank you for reinitiating this topic.

Perhaps a constitution would protect delegators and validators who play by the rules from dishonesty, like Melea claiming to be 0% commission and using NO FEE in their moniker to deceive delegators. Please comment on the forum post: Urgent Concern: Melea Validator's Misleading 0% Commission Claim

You raise an important point. Validators in the Cosmos ecosystem generally hold significant power due to the need for a limited number of operators to achieve proper block finality in Tendermint. This power has been somewhat restricted through delegated proof of stake, which shifts part of the decision-making power to stakers rather than validators. This is where the governance system originated, although it hasn’t seen much improvement, despite being our only means of countering centralization in validation which is inherent in cometBFT. The Cosmos Hub is the ideal environment to establish a constitution and state like organization built around this constitution. I strongly believe that embedding a validator’s obligation to follow governance decisions, such as implementing the mandatory 5% fee, into the constitution would provide a real safeguard. This obligation should be clearly documented and carry penalties for non-compliance which may be a “human decision” like a marketing campaign that would not go in the direction of governance choices as for 0% validators who have implemented the code but sell it otherwise. It is, in my view, the role of the governance from a broad…

Excerpt (1196 of 1433 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Melea charges 5% like all other validators. Its hard coded in, but he does not rebate delegators and return the commission as he advertises. He is lying and stealing. That is issue #1 . We have no problem with validators offering incentives. We have a major problem with dishonesty and theft that reflects negatively on all other Hub validators. He should be properly exposed and penalized. Issue #2 is Melea’s on-chain moniker “NO FEE” and “FREE Validator service at 0% Commission.” Monikers we believe should be Validator name only and not available as an advertising platform. Marketing campaigns should be totally separate. mintscan.io Mintscan Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks. Screenshot_20241103_122159_Brave 1080×2400 223 KB Here are our ideas for a penalty. Urgent Concern: Melea Validator's Misleading 0% Commission Claim Proposal Ideas We need to figure out what can actually be done first. We would like to see him barred from voting on network proposals for at least a year. We would like to see a 100% tax imposed for every month of dishonesty. So far that is almost nine…

Excerpt (1199 of 1413 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Absolutely, yes. We have long advocated for this initiative and are fully committed to actively participating in the coordination efforts for a Cosmos Hub Constitution. We believe there are valuable lessons to be drawn from the AtomOne constitutional process, to which we have also been active contributors.

It’s worth acknowledging that the path forward for the Hub may take longer, given its inherently more decentralized ecosystem compared to AtomOne. However, we’re confident that we can draw substantial inspiration from the progress made there, laying the groundwork for our own foundational framework.

Atom One is indeed an excellent first example of constitution. I share your opinion, the writing of this constitution will require more effort and time, especially because of the effective decentralization of the hub, but also if we want to deepen the constitutional process to lead to the creation of institutions.

The next step, I think, would be to establish a constituent assembly to draft that constitution. For the moment, it would be wise to collect different points of view, especially those who are reluctant to this initiative.

Thanks for the feedback!

Thanks @Quentin, great work! It really feels like a law dissertation from university. So good reminder .

You’re absolutely right—decentralization, like art, can’t exist without rules.

What’s your take on the “Cosmos Kelsen Pyramid”?

image828×577 77.5 KB

Kelsen Pyramide

@AtlasStaking raised important issues about validator fee.

Do you think this should be addressed in the constitution or through a lower-tier norm?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

I am glad to know that you have knowledge about the Kelsen pyramid. For my part, it is a process that takes place naturally in my mind, it constitutes an indisputable basis of the hierarchy of norms that we must understand for this topic. In principle , any constitutionalist will tell you a similar thing: the norms must be prioritized according to two parameters. On the one hand, their generality, that is to say their scope: the more general a norm is, the higher it is in this pyramid. On the other hand, their applicability or precision: the more precise a norm is and produces direct legal effects for individuals, the lower it is in the pyramid. To sum up, without taking into account international law which occupies a particular place in this hierarchy, the Constitution must contain rules of general order, often almost ideological, while being imprecise to allow the law to specify their content. Going back to our case , if we were to determine whether the problem of 0 fees validators should be integrated into a constitutional standard, it is necessary first to analyze the obligation that we want to create, from general to specific. I see that a general principle can be…

Excerpt (1193 of 2663 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Update on this topic:

For anyone interested in continuing the work on the constitution, I have set up a Discord server where we can collaborate and discuss the best ways to design a constitution. You’ll also find my work on potential institutions there. We will continue to use the Cosmos Hub forum to share major updates on our progress. Join us and let’s debate together!

The invite link appears to be expired or invalid. Please update your previous post with a refreshed version!

it’s done, it should work this time.

Thank you for setting up a discord server to discuss this, @Quentin.

As an option for those who would rather openly discourse on this forum, and instead of “recreating the wheel,” can we collectively agree on this model as the Preamble?

1
Preamble
We, the people of the Cosmos, in order to create a free world, enable voluntary and borderless transactions, facilitate permissionless innovation, ensure economic security, resist censorship, cater to economic and technological development, allow for the creation of sovereign zones, and maintain order among sovereign zones, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the AtomOne Hub.

Source: genesis/CONSTITUTION.md at main · atomone-hub/genesis · GitHub

Hey, thank you for participating, The preamble of a constitution should not only represent the will of the constituents but also, more broadly, the values that the stakers wish to uphold. In my view, the Atom One constitution no longer represents the current Cosmos Hub. Atom has taken a much less conservative path compared to Atom One. Therefore, adopting their preamble as it stands does not seem relevant, as it no longer reflects the current reality of the hub (as evidenced by this proposal , which significantly departs from Atom One’s conservative vision). However, I also admit that this preamble is sufficiently broad and inclusive. That being said, I am in no position to accept or reject a preamble or constitution proposal. This decision lies with the community. For this reason, even though I am working in my free time on a complex constitution tailored to the hub’s specific needs, the primary goal of this discussion is to emphasize the necessity of establishing a constitution and also to think of how we can do that. This involves not only reforming governance but also defining a process for creating a constitution that genuinely represents the chain’s actual needs and…

Excerpt (1197 of 1622 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thanks for your effort @Quentin.

I for one am not for a written constitution. I feel this would create more friction going forward (this Family Guy clip comes to mind, ofc an exaggerated example), and generally speaking, I feel that the social consensus → onchain gov approval process we have now is fine.

A constitution, IMO, will only slow down growth.

But, I’m not wordsmith nor a constitutional expert, and I can see more knowledgeable people than I already voicing support here (hola at @jacobgadikian and @Govmos), so perhaps there is merit in this.

A constitution provides a clear, commonly agreed-upon baseline to establish essential rules and definitions that the entire community can collectively align with. Importantly, a well-constructed constitutional framework should be ratified by governance and require a supermajority vote with a substantial quorum to ensure its legitimacy. It is essential to clarify that such a constitution is not intended to slow growth but to facilitate it by removing ambiguity. Its primary goals are to: • Define clear boundaries and acceptable practices. • Provide precise definitions for key technical terms, avoiding misuse or misinterpretation of network properties. These objectives ensure transparency and reliability without introducing unnecessary philosophical complexity. On this point, we draw valuable lessons from the GovGen chain’s constitutional process, particularly its structured approach to rules and definitions. For the Cosmos Hub, we advocate for a narrower scope—focused on clarity and utility—while taking inspiration from the exceptional groundwork established there. We are open to further discussions on alternative goals, but firmly believe this approach brings a net…

Excerpt (1196 of 1258 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I really like your example, and it’s true! As soon as we enter the world of words, interpretation takes over. For instance, I considered setting decentralization as a guiding principle, but without precision, it would be difficult to determine whether it refers to decentralization of consensus , produced by validators, or decentralization of capital . In other words, if a proposal aimed to reduce the validator set , some might see it as a breach of the constitution, while others would not. Even in the absence of ambiguity in the constitution or definitions like @Govmos said, some principles may sometimes contradict one another. Here’s an example (perhaps not the best one): imagine two guiding principles, decentralization and interconnectivity through instant finality . If a law proposed decentralizing the validator set beyond 1,000 validators, it would rely on the constitutional principle of decentralization. Yet, such a measure would result in a drastic reduction in interconnectivity , which is also a constitutional principle. This is precisely why a constitutional judge is necessary. Their role would be to hold the legislature accountable when a measure fails to align with…

Excerpt (1197 of 3546 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’m sure this discussion continues to build on discord, and thank you again for initiating this important topic back in 2024, but any updates @Quentin? Still firmly believe the Cosmos Hub needs a constitution.

I would have liked to tell you that things are moving forward, but that would be a lie. Cosmos Labs hasn’t really approved the initiative, and I completely understand their reasons.

Of course, I believe the hub needs a constitution, and I’m sure the discussion will naturally pick up again (and I’ll definitely take part in it) once the hub has fertile ground. In other words, once it has revenue. That’s why I agree with Cosmos Labs’ vision on this point: the most important thing right now is to create real utility. The rules will come later, I think, out of a natural need for decentralization and structure.

For now, I’m focusing my free time on trying to propose a use case for the stack that could potentially provide the hub with fertile ground for what are currently rather barren lands.

The Cosmos Hub was originally built as “real utility,” just as air conditioning, gas, water, etc. serve as such. One of the Hub’s original purpose was to support the expansion and growth of the Interchain, unless I am mistaken.

RE Cosmos Lab’s, the response to Prop 993 shows us that one of their leaders does not honor Hub governance, unless Prop 72 funds have been returned? Regardless, I can fully respect their vision, alongside your alignment with theirs, but they are not the Cosmos Hub, in its entirety.

I’ll continue to recycle previous threads/posts RE constitution efforts, on this forum, to continue this much needed effort. The need for one, minimal or elaborate, becomes increasingly evident.