Signaling Prop 981 PASSED on Dec 17th, 2024 with overwhelming community support! The follow-up Param Update Proposal #982 is now live (Dec 17th - Dec 31st, 2024) to whitelist Ark Protocol’s developer wallet for deploying InterChain NFT contracts on the Cosmos Hub. We encourage all validators and community members to vote YES and help bring secure, interoperable NFT functionality to the Hub. Update (Dec 17th, 2024) Proposal 981 Passed with Overwhelming Support! We are thrilled to announce that Proposal 981 has passed successfully! • +90 Validators Voted YES • A Few Abstained • None Voted NO or Veto • Quorum Achieved: 50.45% (out of 40%) A heartfelt thanks to the Cosmos community, validators, creators, and builders who supported this milestone. Your trust empowers us to deliver on the promise of Interchain NFTs . Next Steps: Param Update Proposal #982 The follow-up Param Update Proposal #982 is now live for voting. This proposal seeks to whitelist Ark Protocol’s developer wallet to deploy Interchain NFT contracts on the Cosmos Hub, enabling: • NFT Contracts (cw721): Secure minting and management of NFTs. • Bridge Contracts (ics721): Seamless…

Excerpt (1198 of 16074 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I want to congratulate Ark Protocol for their devotion, directly targeting a real need for end users around NFT bridges. They chose to build a protocol, not a new chain with 25% inflation, they build on existing infrastructures including the Hub, thank you. I completely agree that NFTs have their roles within the Cosmos Ecosystem and beyond. NFTs may seem trivial or useless, I thought that too but I realized that they have a strong power to gather and maintain an active and engaged community (ex Mad Scientists). I think that the Hub, although focused on building new infrastructures, should also look to provide fun apps for its community behind which they could rally during bears and create momentum during Bulls. Concerning Asteroid, for the moment the observation is bad for me. I’ve been using Stargaze almost every day for over a year now and recently I wanted to test Asteroïd and I was disappointed. Not even 1/100 of Stargaze’s activity, sometimes you can have several days without having a single purchase on the entire platform, no possibility to mint with a ledger, the platform is ok but lacks dozens of features…etc In my opinion the Hub should invest to improve Asteroïd…

Excerpt (1197 of 1883 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Ty, mate and your great support! That’s why we are here and have been building: serving and protecting the NFT fam (since UST depeg in May 2022!!).

BTW… once this prop gets passed, we’ll launch a first-ever genesis collection on the hub ;).

we’ll launch a first-ever genesis collection on the hub ;).

I’m already all interested !!

Make sure to gather support from the Atom community and try to get official support (rather on chain or through a future elected DAO?) and validators on-board and it should be an absolute blast

It could make the Cosmos Hub the Hub for NFTs of the interchain. With their data stored in the CosmosHub thanks to Asteroid Protocol, all NFTs would add a whole new utility to the CosmosHub. Hats off Ark protocol !

We’ve working closely with Asteroid Protocol and AADAO since a while on this. Now it’s up to the community voting on this

Appreciate support from strong inscription advocates like ComosWorms !

Yes! We are actively working on this. Official statement from AADAO and Asteroid Protocol coming soon.

Also big community like Mad Scientists are supporting us on this. Checkout Spaces with Zerk tihs Wednesday, Nov 20th 7pm UTC.

We have definitely discussed this and there will be more on addressing these concerns too and Ark will play a big part in it!

One more thing: we’ll also having a strategic partnership with StreamSwap. We are aligning strong teams pushing $ATOM to the moon!

On behalf of Govmos and the PRO Delegators’ validator team, we align with @jtremback ’s perspective and the proposed operational framework for CosmWasm on the Hub, as outlined in the following discussion: Discussion: Hub CosmWasm guidelines? Proposal Ideas We are working on integrating CosmWasm into the Cosmos Hub. It will go live in the v18 release, after the release of ICS 2.0. Before then, I wanted to start a discussion about possible guidelines for the use of CosmWasm, since it is something that has come up in the community. Please note- Informal Systems will integrate and deploy CosmWasm in Gaia v18 whether or not these guidelines (or any guidelines) are approved in a signaling proposal. I just wanted to get a discussion going before then. P… Adhering to these guidelines, we believe that hosting NFT-related functionality on the Hub does not align with its core mission of interchain security and governance. While we are open to discussions about potentially extending this mission, there is currently insufficient evidence to justify including NFT functionalities within this framework. As such, our stance is to cast a negative vote on this…

Excerpt (1193 of 1553 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Big supporter of this proposal. I would love to see NFTs go fully crosschain with the Hub as their core home. Creators could optionally use Asteroid as the “storage layer” for their artwork while also gaining interchain access. Whitelisting Ark would also enable capabilities that simply aren’t possible with inscriptions, so it should dramatically improve the UX and power of Asteroid Protocol, while also turning the Hub into the Schelling point for cross-chain NFTs in the Cosmos.

Currently, Cosmos UX is fragmented across numerous chains. Ark can make this experience far more seamless with interchain NFTs, and help cement Cosmos Hub as critical fabric for ALL Cosmos chains. It will grow the visibility and utility of the Hub, which is good for all.

Govmos: Adhering to these guidelines, we believe that hosting NFT-related functionality on the Hub does not align with its core mission of interchain security and governance. This attitude and people like you are the reason Cosmos isn’t progressing to be all that it can be. Screw the old consumer chain BS narrative, the problems IBC has is because we pushed for ever dApp to have a chain and now we’re stuck with almost 200 chains fighting over fractured liquidity, an ecosystem that is impossible for newbs to figure out, new chains that don’t even want to admit they use CosmosSDK, and all of crypto calling $ATOM a worthless token and CosmosHub a ghost chain that should be shut down. The whole problem with IBC are the people that don’t want to admit these failures and actually start reversing course and people that act like boomers and can’t get out of the way of innovation because they can’t adapt. People want and are begging for CosmosHub to GTF up and do something FFS. Get out of this rut we’ve put ourselves in where we’ve pigeon holed ourselves by purposely keeping innovation off our door step out of a vision, failed vision at that, that CosmosHub shouldn’t be a real…

Excerpt (1199 of 1921 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Talking about security. Currently in Cosmos Hub there is still the official NFT module: gaia/go.mod at main · cosmos/gaia · GitHub

So it is already part of the hub, but there’s a design flaw here: it allows everyone to mint an NFT. This should be replaced by using the CosmWasm-based/cw-nft contract (where Ark is the key contributor!).

We have also discussed this desgin flaw some time ago with IRISnet:

image552×726 87.3 KB

IRISnet has implemented the module-based version of our ics721 bridge. During their audit they had this security issue due to x/nft module.

image570×772 82.2 KB

Side note here: unlike IRISnet’s solution, we have added additional security measures, like:

• a pauser msg in our bridge
• outgoing and incoming proxies allowing to block compromised chains or contracts

image673×389 56.8 KB

First, thank you for taking the time to craft such a detailed and thoughtful response to our concerns. These crucial details should have been included in the initial proposal, as they are highly relevant for contextualizing the need to deploy the Wasm integration. We would be willing to reconsider our vote if this proposition were framed within a broader reform strategy, particularly one that involves deprecating the NFT module and replacing it with the proposed permissioned Wasm implementation . Such a direction would align closely with our principles and earn our full support with a positive vote. If our interpretation of your vision is inaccurate, please feel free to clarify or elaborate on how your proposition plans to evolve the NFT market on the Hub. As we noted in our initial feedback, “we remain open to changing our stance if evidence of tangible benefit is presented,” and your arguments suggest you may indeed possess such evidence. To conclude, we only hope to see this broader context (deprecating the NFT module as we integrate the permissioned wasm version instead) incorporated into the final draft before it is submitted for on-chain approval. Thank you again for…

Excerpt (1199 of 1213 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Currently in Cosmos Hub there is still the official NFT module: gaia/go.mod at main · cosmos/gaia · GitHub

@ark_team Please note that Gaia doesn’t have the NFT module. The import in go.mod is indirect due to cosmossdk.io/simapp.

mpoke:

Gaia doesn’t have the NFT module. The import in go.mod is indirect due to cosmossdk.io/simapp.

We return to our original position, maintaining that further clarification from the author is needed to justify the implementation of NFT functionality on the Hub. This justification should align with the existing framework of the Hub’s core utility, namely security and governance. Without such a defense, we find it challenging to support this proposal.

slacker1979:

Let me add that this is why I’m against validators having delegated voting power. You should only be allowed to vote with your own liquidity so we have actual users voting on policies.

Coming here to say that I strongly agree with this.

This should be really up there on the priority list of governance FIXES.

Govmos: should align with the existing framework of the Hub’s core utility, namely security and governance I hear and respect @Govmos ’ argument - Hub’s core offering right now is security, and ofc this does not particularly align with that. However, I disagree that it needs to align. The Hub’s core product - security - is a service that has maybe just 200 customers globally - i.e., other chain founders that want to launch with a sizeable economic security on Day 1. That’s it, just 100ish people. The problem, as I see it, is that those 200 people don’t want to consider the Hub as a security provider, because of the negative sentiment around the Hub. And so, the only ones who have been considering us as a security provider are those who see the Hub NOT just as a security provider, but rather, as the center of Cosmos ecosystem. The chains that have thus far associated with us, in my opinion, are motivated mainly by the value add and users they can gain through their association with the Hub. (everyone else, rn, are choosing Eigen - despite it not being ready and inferior tech!) But the Hub’s userbase is stagnating because there is nothing you can do here - other…

Excerpt (1198 of 2098 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

First of all, thank you for your constructive feedback. The community did a research on your work and your dedication to Cosmos is amazing: image 746×677 85.2 KB The narrative for just being solely for “security and governance” has shifted already: Prop 917 : Funding prize pool for public goods, new teams building on the Hub and ATOM Economic Zone This prop is the most recent and biggest move for increasing $ATOM value and attracting users on Cosmos Hub! Also check the discussion on the mission here: [PROPOSAL #917][VOTING][CORRECTED] DoraHacks: AEZ Quadratic Funding Program Many comments related to this AEZ funding are in context of having these public goods deployed on the Hub via SmartContracts like: The intention is good, but it would be nice to be able to build a stack within the hub after the smart contract proposal. Or stated by yourself: … Regarding the general design, wouldn’t it be easier to roll this feature with a wasm contract directly on the Hub ? Now that the proposal #895 has passed with plans to grant the hub with permission-ed smart contract capabilities in the future. … The Hub’s mission “Security and Governance” is neither for…

Excerpt (1196 of 4235 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

You have done a remarkable job, which I believe has already aroused the admiration of many on this forum. However, I will vote no, in a purely conservative logic regarding the hub. In my opinion, the hub should remain as minimalist as possible, and CosmWasm should only be activated in case of extreme necessity, as a last resort. To create NFTs and access CosmWasm in a permissionless way, we already have Neutron. In other words, it is the role of consumer channels to take the risks inherent in CosmWasm. I will also add that I see no point in competing with other chain like Stargaze, which could one day consider becoming a consumer chain. Competing with other business models, such as NFTs, also limits the scope of the product we should aim to promote, namely the PSS. Stargaze could feel threatened by the hub and could therefore be reluctant to connect to it. In conclusion, while this idea is attractive in the short term because it meets a current market demand, it is not a viable long-term solution. It does not meet the necessity requirements for using CosmWasm (NFTs are not a priority) and does not align with the ecosystem structure, as this need is already well understood…

Excerpt (1196 of 1471 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Your commitment to providing clarifications in such a productive and constructive manner is truly commendable. We hope all contributors to Hub governance demonstrate this level of engagement when addressing feedback and defending their proposals. As stated before, we are not entirely against the proposal but are seeking more context and a clear purpose before reaching on-chain consensus. It’s encouraging to see you adopting this positive approach, as it benefits everyone involved: we gain a deeper understanding of your project and vision, the community gains greater clarity, and you benefit from refining your proposal, enhancing its chances of successful on-chain approval. Returning to the topic, we appreciate the additional precision you provided regarding your vision and the utility this functionality could bring to the Hub in the context of its core principles: security and governance. In particular, we valued the following points from your latest response: ark_team: Finally there will be good reasoning for ICA, ICS, etc. because of these consumer needs. Examples: stake, airdrop and claim on chain XYZ, by leaving your NFT on home chain (and using DAODAO(!!), ICA,…

Excerpt (1199 of 3038 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I have no issue with this platform being launched on the hub, as long as it does not impact security or unnecessarily congest the hub.
However, I believe that the best approach would be to make StarGaze a PSS and use it as a proxy if this chain ever wants to become one.
Overall, I think this could be good for the hub and promote its usage. However, I believe it is necessary and essential to highlight consumer chains and build their loyalty. I also generally agree with Quentin’s perspective on this matter.

Your faithfully

Guinch

Disclaimer: I’m the founder of Ark Protocol. Let’s talk about governance, DAODAO allows creating 3 kinds of DAOs: multisig-, token- and NFT-based DAOs. The latter allows users voting based on their NFTs they hold. They also see that by NFTs going InterChain is the missing link for DAODAO going fully interchain . image 569×186 18.4 KB In fact we have discussed this closely with Noah and Jake on this matter, doing lots of tests, providing feedback and suggesting more interchain utilities: image 584×571 55.3 KB What do we envision here? Simple: DAODAO + InterChain NFT contracts on the hub => safe harbor and governance on the Hub for users and their assets like NFTs and $ATOM! Example: users demands ONE tool for handling all activities for their assets. DAODAO to the rescue! So ucer can do this: • setup DAO e.g. on Neutron or on any other chain user prefers • setup ICA e.g. on Cosmos Hub • ICA account/wallet is linked to its owned DAO • owned DAO is linked to its wallet e.g. Neutron • optionally: define additional backup wallets for controlling DAO • transfer all assets e.g. to ICA account on the hub User can now e.g. vote and stake using DAO from…

Excerpt (1197 of 2842 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

mr-t: DAODAO + InterChain NFT contracts on the hub => safe harbor and governance on the Hub for users and their assets like NFTs and $ATOM! Example: users demands ONE tool for handling all activities for their assets. DAODAO to the rescue! So ucer can do this: • setup DAO e.g. on Neutron or on any other chain user prefers • setup ICA e.g. on Cosmos Hub • ICA account/wallet is linked to its owned DAO • owned DAO is linked to its wallet e.g. Neutron • optionally: define additional backup wallets for controlling DAO • transfer all assets e.g. to ICA account on the hub There is quite a lot more to unpack there! We had questions and you actually delivered convincing arguments. We want to emphasize that our intention wasn’t to oppose the idea but to see a more detailed rationale to weigh against the potential risks. From what you’ve outlined, we can see the broader vision and the potential benefits the proposal brings, especially in terms of governance and use of Hub’s security. You even showcase very interesting use cases involving a combination of both, which we absolutely love. Your examples provide much-needed clarity, and they effectively address several…

Excerpt (1197 of 1699 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thx again for your constructive feedback - really enjoying this convo! … we still believe there’s value in further elaborating on the risk mitigation strategies you foresee (if any), particularly regarding any unwanted impact on core Hub operations or possible vulnerabilities. … Gated Bridge with Outgoing and Incoming Proxy The incoming proxy whitelists IBC channels. This guarantees only known and secure chains are eligible for bridging to the Hub. Compromised chains are WLed by IBC channels. Same goes for outgoing proxy: NFTs can only bridge from the chain to WLed channels (=chains). In addition outgoing proxy has more gated/WL features: • collection (addresses): only WLed collections can transfer/be bridged from the hub to other chains (and vice versa) • cw721 checksums: only collections using supported, official cw721 (based on checksums) can transfer • rate limiter: only a given number (X) of NFTs per block can be bridged As a last resort we have a build-in pauser msg, allowing ICS721/bridge contract to halt and not excepting any transfer. All of these has been battle tested by our interchain contracts deployed on Osmosis, Stargaze, Terra and Juno. We…

Excerpt (1196 of 2108 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Govmos:

We want to emphasize that our intention wasn’t to oppose the idea but to see a more detailed rationale to weigh against the potential risks. From what you’ve outlined, we can see the broader vision and the potential benefits the proposal brings, especially in terms of governance and use of Hub’s security. You even showcase very interesting use cases involving a combination of both, which we absolutely love.

Ty, ser. Just want to emphasize and being fully aware of your VERY constructive feedback and being open to this. From the convo it is clear your are not opposing against this prop - actually you helped us a lot with your concerns. In my initial draft I had that in mind - but was concerned that it would blow the whole prop and no ONE will be interested into this elaborated vision we have in mind.

Again, thx a ton! Validators like you bring a lot of value to the Hub. Invaluable and priceless!

We’ll defintely recommend peeps staking for PRO Delegators!

Some more notes on security. Remember the IBC Hooks exploit hurting Astroport? This wont happen with our callbacks provided by ICS721. This was implemented e.g. for Terra:

image548×602 96.2 KB

IBC Protocol also interviewed us and asking for feedback about IBC Hooks and how we’ve implemented callbacks. They’ve tweeted a technical paper we wrote and we did a presentation to their audience, showcasing cw-ics721:

image553×602 86.6 KB

Paper can be found here. We’re officially listed in their IBC Resource Catalog.

These are some of our proven records demonstrating where we at and who recognizes our interchain efforts in Cosmos.

HTH, Mr T

The hub can very well remain minimalist and focus on its infrastructures and PSS without completely closing the door to all features and opportunities. The goal is not to compete with Stargaze, however it is important to not underestimate network effects and community engagement. I see chains with 1/10 of ATOM’s market cap receiving way more support and general hype from outside. They all have discords, roles, activity and engaged users gathering behind NFT acting like a badge. This have the effect to galvanize users behind a chain. ATOM has none of that, because of the minimalist aspect, all the political dramas, bad price action and low ICS rewards, no NFT, no apps, there is like Syed said no real users, people come, stake, claim, sell rewards, leave. The culture around ATOM isn’t strong on the positive side. It’s becoming a meme. I see Ark and the general Idea of NFT brigde, community ownDao, NFT as a badge, web3 citizen-ship a good way for ATOM to bring something new and big. I’m not talking about flooding atom with low quality random inscriptions but rather creating the first ATOM NFT badge, funded and owned by the community, could have its node or owned Dao and…

Excerpt (1189 of 1463 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Quentin:

In my opinion, the hub should remain as minimalist as possible, and CosmWasm should only be activated in case of extreme necessity, as a last resort.

Pls check our recent convo with Govmos above, regarding Security and Governance. From this perspective, we see the need for NFTs on the hub because:

• NFT data are best secured on the hub and
• NFT governance will be utiliized via DAODAO

Guinch_Roze:

Overall, I think this could be good for the hub and promote its usage. However, I believe it is necessary and essential to highlight consumer chains and build their loyalty.

Here as well: we’ve outline the need of NFTs from the Hub’s perspective of Security and Governance in above convo.

Would this reasoning help you and Quentin to vote YES on this?

I will vote Yes. Hub need to evolve and minimalism would be appreciated on Atone.

As I said in my post I like to see the hub in a conservative way, by conservative I mean a chain of governance as safe as possible, you managed to sell it to me in the right way, I will vote yes

mr-t:

• collection (addresses): only WLed collections can transfer/be bridged from the hub to other chains (and vice versa)
• cw721 checksums: only collections using supported, official cw721 (based on checksums) can transfer
• rate limiter: only a given number (X) of NFTs per block can be bridged

The details provided in this response sufficiently address the key concerns we had regarding the potential risks to the Hub. With the guarantees outlined here and in your previous explanations, we feel confident in shifting to a positive stance on this proposal.

Thank you for your thorough and active engagement in addressing our questions—it has been instrumental in reaching this conclusion.

Just wanted to quickly chime in and say thanks to everyone engaging in this discussion.

And also massive props to @ark_team and @mr-t for addressing all the comments and queries!

Update/Summary: Emphasizing Both Security and Governance – Protecting Valuable NFT Assets and Enhancing Governance on the Cosmos Hub Following further discussions on the Cosmos Hub forum, we have received insightful feedback highlighting the critical importance of focusing on both Security and Governance in our proposal. We appreciate the community’s engagement and would like to address these points directly, reinforcing how our initiative aligns with the Hub’s mission and enhances both the security of valuable NFT assets and governance mechanisms. We’d like to extend our sincere thanks to @Govmos , @Quentin , and @Guinch_Roze for their constructive feedback. Through our discussions, we were able to address their concerns, and they have expressed their support for this proposal. The Cosmos Hub as the Secure Foundation for NFTs Each chain in the Cosmos ecosystem offers unique potentials and faces different risks. The Cosmos Hub is recognized as probably the most secure chain , making it an ideal place to store and protect valuable data assets like NFTs . NFTs as Valuable Data Stores • NFTs represent valuable data that requires robust security and protection. • By…

Excerpt (1198 of 7120 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

The difference between the initial proposition and this updated version is staggering

Good follow-up proposal. I’d vote yes.

you have my YES vote .

Yet another update. Check out this summary of Mad Scientists Spaces we had with Zerk.

tl;dr:

• NFTs + Inscriptions = Stronger together
• Ark Protocol and Asteroid Protocol will merge together

Long live $ATOM!

Would like to also chime in here and say the Ark team has been very professional and enthusiastic in our engagements, from the productive discussions below I feel more confident than ever to support them.

Also appreciate @Govmos inputs and willingness to support this team. Beautiful things are coming and couldn’t be more excited.

This may have also been one of the healthiest discussions I have seen in a while so kudos to all of you.

catching up on the discussion:

ark_team:

The introduction of inscriptions by Asteroid Protocol has brought NFTs to the Cosmos Hub, unlocking new use cases, attracting users, and creating revenue opportunities for stakeholders. However, unlike fungible tokens, NFT interoperability within the Cosmos ecosystem remains limited. Ark Protocol is addressing this by leading efforts to enhance NFT interoperability across Cosmos.

You cannot compare on-chain NFT stored in a smart-contract states with inscription where the states are by definition stored off-line.

ark_team:

• NFT data are best secured on the hub and
• NFT governance will be utiliized via DAODAO

Neutron is an ICS chain, this mean Neutron is in a fully replicated security and as secured as the cosmoshub. hosting a contract on Neutron or hosting a contract on the Cosmoshub provide exactly the same security.

Neutron was created following the negative community opinion to deploy CosmWasm on the hub, and is become the secured place to deploy you contract.

DAODAO is deployed on Neutron as well, so you will be able to have your governance on it.

Amazing to see this overall forum continue to ignore bigger issues, such as the LSM code, and continue efforts in bloating the system further.

edit: how did I miss NFT’s being implemented on the Hub via Asteroids (thank you @Tagu)

reference (Jan 16): Asteroid protocol inscriptions on Cosmos Hub

From that thread, I echo @vixcontango’s sentiment: “If you want to do something, appchain it. Keep your hands off the Hub.” but seems it is too late though.

The Hub already has NFTs with Asteroids…

I don’t think the point of this proposal is to flood atom with NFTs. Ark is a NFT bridge based on IBC technology. The same way ATOM can ibc tokens from the Cosmos I think it’s a natural continuation. Otherwise it would feel like a huge miss opportunity. Imagine closing IBC of tokens because the hub has to stay minimalist…

I see only positive to be able to whitelist blue chip NFTs from other successful chains to trade on the hub. (Bad Kid, Celestine Sloths, MS…etc). I Would vote no to a permissionless bridge but I don’t think it’s the case here?

Gm @David_Crosnest ! David_Crosnest: You cannot compare on-chain NFT stored in a smart-contract states with inscription where the states are by definition stored off-line. This is not correct. Asteroid Inscriptions are stored onchain on the Hub - though there’s currently an offchain solution for “transferring” to Neutron and handling ownership. We will address this, by handling ownership on-chain as well. In addition we’ll extend our bridge for inscriptions going interchain as well. That makes it 100% onchain and hence decentralized and secured. David_Crosnest: Neutron is an ICS chain, this mean Neutron is in a fully replicated security and as secured as the cosmoshub. hosting a contract on Neutron or hosting a contract on the Cosmoshub provide exactly the same security. Neutron is great - but not sure whether Cosmos Hub and Neutron (or any other Cosmos chain) are per se comparable in terms of like Governance, Security and interchain features. Every chain has their reasoning and stands out with their own utilies! Users will benefit from all of this, by connecting, bridging and enabling all these utilties going interchain! Imho, the main…

Excerpt (1196 of 1435 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

FHZ: From that thread, I echo @vixcontango ’s sentiment: “If you want to do something, appchain it. Keep your hands off the Hub.” but seems it is too late though. Not sure how to answer this in a constructive manner :). But lemme try: Our focus is providing and facilitating interchain utilities to and for app chains. That’s our competence, check these track records: ark_team: • NFTs fascilitating (secure) ICA and DAODAO governance, overall DoraHacks AEZ winner with ~60% votes (195 out of 340) in round 4 • risk mitigation strategies regarding any unwanted impact on core Hub operations or possible vulnerabilities • secure, audited ICS721 callbacks (unlike previous IBC Hooks exploit) mr-t: Some more notes on security. Remember the IBC Hooks exploit hurting Astroport ? This wont happen with our callbacks provided by ICS721. This was implemented e.g. for Terra : mr-t: They also see that by NFTs going InterChain is the missing link for DAODAO going fully interchain . image 569×186 18.4 KB In fact we have discussed this closely with Noah and Jake on this matter, doing lots of tests, providing feedback and…

Excerpt (1189 of 2221 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Tagu:

The same way ATOM can ibc tokens from the Cosmos I think it’s a natural continuation. Otherwise it would feel like a huge miss opportunity.

I second that! +1

Tagu:

I Would vote no to a permissionless bridge but I don’t think it’s the case here?

Correct, it is gated. We do respect each app chain’s mission. Like we’ll open bridge on chains like Terra and Injective. But on other chains like Cosmos Hub and Stargaze it stays gated - unless they changed their mind later on.

Our philosophy here: Ark is like Switzerland - we have a neutral stance in this regard!

ark_team:

Asteroid Inscriptions are stored onchain on the Hub

yes, the inscriptions are stored on chain (the Tx containing the inscription payload)
but the inscription “execution” is done off-chain by the indexer
The ledger is an off-chain database, you NFT doesn’t have real on-chain existance.
even the image payload is extracted to be stored on a AWS S3.

This is correct, and we will change this by moving logic to smart contract:

inscription “execution” is done off-chain by the indexer

Every protocol does this, by indexing / storing data in a DB, for better and faster UX:

The ledger is an off-chain database, you NFT doesn’t have real on-chain existance.
even the image payload is extracted to be stored on a AWS S3.

Though the truth of source is always the data onchain - hence NFT has real on-chain existance! Frontend could retrieve data onchain - but that’s WAY to slow and not good at all for UX. Ideally there should be a 2-way strategy:

• get data from indexer (faster) - and in case indexer is unavailable,
• get data on-chain (backup)

By design NFTs and Inscriptions consist of two major parts:

1. valuable data store and
2. data ownership

So:

1. this is the reason, where users are willing e.g. to bring in $ATOM liquidity, and in return the Hub guanrantees it is safe and secure and users benefit from other Hub features like governance, staking rewards, …
2. smart contracts + ICA + IBC allow users to handle NFT resp. Inscription ownership across multiple chains / cross chain!

Love to see work expanding the utility of the hub. Great proposal!

Thx a lot for you support, but need to disagree about @Govmos: yes, they were critical, but brought valuable insights. We have answered all their concerns and they’ve changed their mind and will vote YES - once prop goes onchain Dec 3rd 2024. See detailed summary here: comment #35

shane.stars ✨🔭 | ✧ (@shan3v) on X

Seems like there should be some talks ?

StunZeed:

Seems like there should be some talks ?

Thanks, we are aware of this.

We’ve been working very close with them in last 2.5 years.
We’ve made them an offer to provide this to them as well long time ago - but they neglected.
We’ve been in a call some months ago, that we’ll go on other chains as well (see passed prop on Injective, Osmo, and now going for the Hub and many others as well). They are full aware of this (e.g. following our public statements for at least last 4 months).

There are prob other reasons they dislike - we’ll sort this out with them internally. Def will not create more drama in public !

That is a BIG yes from me! Ark Protocol is pushing new bounds with CoSMOS at the forefront, we’d be crazy to pass this opportunity up!

Now we have a new hub for minimalism (ATONE) and the Cosmos HUB community wants to evolve with use cases I will vote yes. But for the record, it is not among the use cases that were propagated in the discussion of Cosmwasm enabling prop.

[PROPOSAL XX] Signaling Proposal For Cosmos hub improvement - Permissioned CosmWasm Hub Proposals

This proposal replaces proposal 893. Proposal 893 incorrectly has an IPFS hash in the description field. The actual proposal text is as follows, also viewable at https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmUxGC9G5Xx2XttCEThptaJuM3Gpn6xZJdXMRuu81Jguhf Permissioned CosmWasm Implementation on the Cosmos Hub The impending Cosmos Hub fork is opening new paths forward for $ATOM. As there is little need for both chains to be conservative and minimal in nature, now is the perfect time to introduce a permissioned implementa…

Who is Govmos that it was necessary to show their specific “stamp of approval” for Prop981?

@FHZ This. Independent of this topic… just in general.

Acting like the governance holiness moral compass…

The prop on the chain has "[LAST CALL]’ in it. Why? Is it by mistake?

AADAO suggested this, outlining this is the final (text-based) signal proposal. Once this succeeds, there will be another (param-based) proposal, for WLing Ark dev wallet, so we can upload contracts on the Hub.

Hi @ark_team,
in proposal N°982 “Whitelist Ark Protocol Developer Wallet for InterChain NFT Contracts”
You request the whitelist of the developer address to publish your on-chain contract.
Good practice should be to make a proposal to deploy the contract bytecode and not a “trust me bro” whitelist of the developer address.

A less trustless version of this would be the whitelist of a DAODAO policy address on which anyone could have visibility when deploying new contracts/updates.

David_Crosnest:

A less trustless version of this would be the whitelist of a DAODAO policy address on which anyone could have visibility when deploying new contracts/updates.

Gm, ser! It is not possible uploading contracts via DAODAO. That’s why we’ve put the same proposal as for DAODAO here: Mintscan

image672×196 25.3 KB

Hello, I was wondering, can any NFT could become a genetic NFT or it need to have been built on this standard from inception?

Latest NFT contract is cw721 v19 (aka “genetic NFTs”). We’ve added a migration feature allowing to upgrade older versions cw721 v15 and later.

mr-t:

It is not possible uploading contracts via DAODAO.

in this case, you need to create a proposal to upload the contracts
pro-tip, you can create 1 proposal with multiple messages…