[PROPOSAL 993][PASSED] Neutron and the Hub: A new chapter

Changelog 2025-03-19: • Updated governance votes language to clarify the scope of the proposal, namely Neutron’s migration to a sovereign network and the allocation of NTRN. • Clarified that the Cosmos Hub’s decision on whether or not to enable permissionless smart-contracts is a separate matter that will be handled in dedicated governance votes. 2025-03-26: • Added commitment from the Neutron Foundation to return 50,000 ATOM received from Proposal 72 to the Cosmos Hub Community Pool. • Added signer details and multisig addresses Introduction Cosmos Hub has evolved tremendously over the past few years. As the Hub adopts a new stewardship and vision, centered around the creation of a native ATOM ecosystem and provisioning of interchain services, there is a unique opportunity to reassess the Hub’s legacy products and focus all resources on delivering a coherent vision for the Hub. Neutron has always been a pioneering partner of the Cosmos Hub. When the Hub doubled down on Interchain Security (ICS), Neutron became the first project to bring the technology to market. Today, as the Hub refocuses on building a native ecosystem on the Cosmos Hub and bridging…

Excerpt (1199 of 19961 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Sad, for me neutron should remain a PSS chain in parallel with the development of permissionless cosmwasm on the hub. For me PSS and ICS remains a sovereign way to develop a chain and scale by simply paying for the validation service but obviously you think the opposite. Apparently cooperation in the cosmos still seems far from ideal and the current situation expresses it well.

I will vote abstain for the simple reason that I support both Neutron and the Hub without agreeing with any of these alternatives.

I support the migration of Neutron into a sovereign chain. As a NRTN holder, I’m excited for the vision of an integrated DeFi experience on a fast chain run by a small validator set.

But I have a hard time understanding the reasoning for the claw-back of the Hub’s NTRN. I believe Neutron’s relationship with the Hub accelerated tremendously its development and that this NTRN was earned fair & square.

My suggestion is to let Hydro deploy the NTRN for the benefit of both communities. We would create a new NTRN liquidity bucket on Hydro, make it exclusive to Neutron’s projects, and potentially give NTRN & dNTRN holders the ability to vote. This would enable deep ATOM-NTRN, dATOM-dNTRN, USDC-dNTRN pools on Astroport, more liquidity on Mars etc.

Deployments are being automated via Valence and we would use Mars perps for automated delta-neutral LP-ing - these are two very Neutron-aligned projects.

The Cosmos Hub keeps ownership of the tokens, Hydro generates tributes for voters & yield for the treasury, without selling anything.

What do you think?

Neutron:

YES - You support the launch of permissionless smart-contracts on the Hub, Neutron’s migration to a sovereign network and the proposed allocation of Community Pool NTRN.

NO - You disagree with the launch of permissionless smart-contracts on the Hub, and/or Neutron’s migration to a sovereign network and/or the proposed allocation of Community Pool NTRN.

NO WITH VETO - A ‘NoWithVeto’ vote indicates a proposal either (1) is deemed to be spam, i.e., irrelevant to Cosmos Hub, (2) disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or (3) violates or encourages violation of the rules of engagement as currently set out by Cosmos Hub governance. If the number of ‘NoWithVeto’ votes is greater than a third of total votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.

ABSTAIN - You wish to contribute to the quorum but you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal.

This is a false dilemma proposal.
Why’s Neutron’s sovereignty being linked to permissionless smart contracts on the hub?

Is this proposal solely a product of Neutron team, or collab bw Neutron and ICL teams?

Imv, the framing of issues super misguided.

Neutron:

This proposal transfers 40,567,950 NTRN from the Cosmos Hub to an Joint Committee made of representatives from both the Cosmos Hub and Neutron communities

Who’s on this committee?

I don’t see why the hub that loses a partner chain should pay to see it leave with its own neutrons. I invite the community to start a more serious discussion around the creation of an investment fund in which the hub would accumulate ICS tokens and keep them as collateral to avoid net losses like the one we are experiencing today.
Related thread: Making the Hub an Investment fund for the interchain - #18 by Guinch_Roze
Either we create a measure of this kind or similar in idea. Or let’s not talk about cooperation anymore and burn these tokens for the repurchase of Atom which would satisfy most of the community in my opinion. I will vote NO to the idea of ​​paying for the departure of neutron. I would vote YES if neutron decided to go under PSS.

I think that if we are to talk about the common good of the two chains and the two communities, we should rather think about a merger between these, and the absorption of the Neutron team into ICL. That would be HUGEEEE.

It is unfortunate to see Neutron leaving ICS. Although we were not required to validate Neutron, we did so because we believe in its long-term value for AEZ. We wish we could continue to support it in the future. Nevertheless, we extend our best wishes to the Neutron team for what lies ahead.

I recommend revising the following section of the proposal, as it may be misleading to state that 53% of NTRN will be distributed to ATOM token holders and validators when, in reality, the majority will go to the new Neutron Validator Set.

Neutron:

Return Excess Tokens to the Neutron DAO

This proposal allocates ~53% of the NTRN currently held in the Cosmos Hub community pool to be distributed to ATOM token holders and validators. The remaining ~47% will be transferred back to the Neutron DAO to fund the continued growth of the network and its ecosystem.

CrowdControl will vote Abstain or No on this proposal, as the migration coverage presents a clear conflict of interest for any validator. We encourage our delegators to submit their own votes.

Cosmos_Nanny:

Why’s Neutron’s sovereignty being linked to permissionless smart contracts on the hub?

Disclaimer : i contribute to one of the core teams for Neutron.

I wasn’t involved in the proposal writing, but agree they shouldn’t have been voted on in one go. Will push for this to be changed. My guess is once the people involved in drafting the proposal are up, they’ll agree too.

Guinch_Roze: I don’t see why the hub that loses a partner chain should pay to see it leave with its own neutrons. Iiuc there are two main motivations : • the NTRN was allocated with a bunch of expectations that have been since broken. There was an understanding that Neutron would be the CW layer for the Cosmos Hub, ICS (specifically replicated security) would be a secure and staple product for the CH, and other general cases of former CH representatives that brokered it overpromising and underdelivering (e.g., ATOM 2.0., soft commitments on POL,… and a handful of others). To be fair what reps say behind the scenes is not a contractual agreement but I do believe what’s voted in governance should be treated as so. I think a fair mental model would be that if there was a service agreement that was broken, the customer should pay the service provider for the services rendered and then call the outstanding cancelled. I don’t think this needs to be a negative thing either, I’m incredibly bullish about the new ICL leadership : they are working towards setting a clear and exciting direction for the CH. The fact that Neutron’s role in that story is changing is exciting, not…

Excerpt (1196 of 1958 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I don’t agree that the NTRN was earned “fair and square”. NTRN was allocated as part of a security agreement (Replicated Security) and a number of other expectations. Since then, Replicated Security, has been announced getting deprecated, the Cosmos Hub seems to be on the path to launching permissionless CW, and many other needles have moved (e.g., the CH’s stance on POL, the AEZ, it’s future value proposition…) I’m not sure what you mean about “accelerating Neutron tremendously”. My recollection of the past few years is much different. I remember constantly moving goal posts on a number of critical things that affected Neutron’s ability to long term plan and focus (Hub’s direction, future of ICS, the stance on the AEZ, POL policy, Osmosis acq discussions…), poor overall coordination, and chain halts as a result of disinterested validators. I would say the NTRN that was earned “fair and square” would be the costs incurred so far by Neutron’s Replicated security deployment. These should definitely be honored (and are honored in this proposal). And even some of these payments could be seen as contentious - specifically those to validators responsible for chain halts as a…

Excerpt (1193 of 1880 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I would agree this is very interesting. I think the technical and social complexity of getting it done is makes it impossible to plan for it in the short term. Best to revisit this later and let the ICL + Neutron core teams cook in the mean time.

It would be even more interesting to let the community give its opinion on this hypothetical merger. The result would surprise quite a few of us. And the alignment would be total and win-win. It’s a shame that people don’t see beyond their navel and the financial aspect of their creation.

You should make a discussion post then, I would genuinely participate and think some others would too. I think it’d be very difficult to get right but am not opposed to having an open conversation.

We think that it’s ok, because ICS don’t really work

There is no real needs for chains to use ICS, because Cosmos hub don’t really help to consumers chains

It’s easier to run own chain, than use ICS

kind of the same situation we have with Dungeon Chain

When consumers chains joined iCS, they expect for some support from Cosmos Hub, as consumers chains, not only security

But by the fact, any successful chain don’t really need ICS, because it’s easier to run own network, as any way they run own network with governors

If consumers chains will get any help from Cosmos Hub - it will be reason to be consumer chain, but for now - I totaly understnd Neutron

YES - You support the launch of permissionless smart-contracts on the Hub, Neutron’s migration to a sovereign network and the proposed allocation of Community Pool NTRN.

I see three props combined Into one.

1. Permissionless CW has nothing to do with you leaving and thats a seperate prop. Do not Mix and camouflage this into you leaving.

Remove permissionless CW completely from this prop.

Cosmos hub Will set its own prop for that.

1. Clawback of neutrons. Were these neutron tokens a lend to atom CP?

Remove this part completely from this prop.

1. Which leaves only neutron leaving in this prop. Do you need a prop for that?

I wish neutron a great success in future endeavor.

I support Neutron’s move toward becoming a sovereign chain.

However, like @agent.kwosh and others have pointed out, this proposal combines completely separate issues - permissionless CosmWasm, clawback of the Hub’s NTRN tokens, and Neutron’s independence.

I would also appreciate seeing a revised proposal draft that removes the permissionless CosmWasm discussion and perhaps only addresses the clawback of the Hub’s NTRN. I believe that Neutron’s decision to leave isn’t something that falls under Hub governance authority (though it makes sense to include as context explaining why the NTRN clawback is being requested).

Thank you.

Regards,
arlai

Agree on these comments too – all these items should probably not be bundled together.

• Since when is it Neutrons business to propose for the HUB to implement permissionlessf CW?

• are the NTRN in the HUB’s CP the price for the HUB to get green light to implement permissionless CW, because you think as long as you’re ‘here’ the HUB can’t?

• how is this alignment going to look, is the first thing you’re gonna do adapt Eureka? Right now it reads like we have to trust you on staying ‘aligned’. I am not saying that you’re not trustworthy, but long story short is, you want money and promise alignment. Ah and on top of that the HUB FINALLY gets to implement permissionless CW.

It’s concerning that you haven’t learned from prop 82. The proposal is flawed on many levels, and I wished you opened your new chapter in a more professional way.
That being said, @spaydh if you amend anything on the proposal (after like 30min chatting with the Atom community..telling..) change that part immediately on the forum. Can’t expect people to read through a chat on TG to learn about the current state of a proposal on the forum.

Neutron: Additionally, this proposal allocates 10.8M NTRN to fund the security budget of the network for the next 2 years and enable the continued payment of the post-migration validator set, composed of leading Cosmos Hub validators: CryptoCrew, Quokka Stake, Allnodes, Chorus One, cosmosrescue, Cosmostation, Crosnest, Golden Ratio Staking, Hadron Labs, Informal Systems, iqlusion, Kiln, P2P, Polkachu, POSTHUMAN, Provalidator, SG-1, Smart Stake, Stake&Relax, Stakecito. Neutron previously allocated 1.8M for the full ~200 Cosmos Hub active set for the security budget, and this idea of using NTRN from the airdrop for the security budget was suggested by us Cosmic Validator. This was when Neutron was using the Cosmos Hub for security. Now Neutron wants to become independent, and now they want to pay for security to just 20 validators (how were they chosen and how come us are not in that group that led many great ideas and initiciatives for Neutron such as the NTRN from airdrop for the security budget?) a total of 10.8M, so that’s 9M NTRN more and just for around 20 validators not 200, so that’s like almost a x100 bigger reward for those 20 validators than for the whole set…

Excerpt (1199 of 4493 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

If you want to talk about “fair” - why don’t you mention Stride, where you were chosen with other ~30 validators to be in the VIP validator set and get all ATOM delegations from Stride.
Was that “fair” because you were chosen? You and other VIP validators benefited for years from the commission, while other validators were forced to validate Stride for basically no benefit, Neutron at least rewarded all validators involved with a decent amount.

Fully in support of this move. Neutron took a big leap of faith as the first ICS chain in arguably the worst period in the Hub/Cosmos’ history. It turns out that the economics and coordination layer were untenable, but I’m excited what this move means for Neutron. Probably the cleanest way of moving forward with respect to the hub’s fellow ambitions.

As a holder and frequent user of both Atom and NTRN, I hope the 2 networks will continue to have a lasting, synergistic relationship.

This might be best to split into 3 different proposals • Support for Permissionless Smart Contracts on the Hub • Support Neutron’s migration away from replicated security • What to do with the NTRN tokens in the hub community pool That being said, here are some initial thoughts. The governance proposals were very loosely worded, and like mentioned above most still cannot come to agreement on even what “do no harm” & “cooperation” mean for the NTRN allocation to the hub. People shouldn’t be surprised that there has been little allocation of these funds for a few reasons: the Hub had the most reason of any investor to wait to see the upside of Neutron, the protocol level solutions that people were banking on to solve the issues of capital deployment & voting, some considered selling as “harm”, and it was in the benefit of NTRN to let those tokens sit idle while ATOM was used to fund projects and incentives. I would say the hub more than held up its end of the deal to that regard. In the traditional world, this seems more like founders going their separate ways and one becoming a silent partner. That means that the continuing team needs proper control, but the original…

Excerpt (1195 of 3812 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

0xMarsMan:

Depending on your point of view, which is super relevant to you @Elijah, Neutron was the beneficiary of multiple projects that the Hub deferred to Neutron. Duality is one level to it, but then there is also Hydro. Would you say that since Neutron didn’t deliver on it’s commitments that it should relinquish the Hydro deployment at the very least? Not choosing either side here, just playing devil’s advocate here and pointing out that there are remedies needed for commitments broken on both sides. The Hub was essentially a seed investor as well, does that deserve consideration?

Appreciate your response, some clarifications :

Duality wasn’t deferred to Neutron. The Cosmos Hub never invested in Duality, Neutron did.

The only reason Hydro is on Neutron is because the Cosmos Hub didn’t have an execution layer. Now it will so Hydro will move there. I think that makes sense and am supportive.

The Cosmos Hub’s “seed grant” does warrant some consideration. There was a considerable airdrop to ATOM holders that was worth signficantly more than that seed grant already though.

0xMarsMan: This is going to be a tough one. It makes the most sense to come to some sort of amicable agreement, but it doesn’t make sense for Neutron to clawback all of these funds. You could consider the Hub as the main investor, LP, and the core infrastructure that Neutron lived off of. There was a lot of opportunity cost for the Hub that will no longer pay off, especially if it is accepted to give back the entire amount. Neutron probably lost some value in different ways as well. There should be good faith negotiation from both sides, as well as understanding what the future will look like for Neutron and the Hub partnerships. The Cosmos Hub was not the main investor in Neutron. They actually contributed a small minority of the total funding contributing to Neutron’s development, and ATOM holders received a considerable airdrop in compensation on Neutron’s launch that was worth way more than the original grant. ICS was a failed experiment, it is being deprecated for a reason. There were a multitude of issues that were never resolved and caused considerable expense to Neutron. All of that said, I do think validators who spent costs validating Neutron throughout this…

Excerpt (1199 of 1350 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

0xMarsMan: ATOM 2.0 was never approved and was not tied to Neutron. The Hub provided liquidity and funded projects on Neutron to the benefit of Neutron over the Hub. It may have been an agreement to be the premier CW layer for the Hub, but does that mean exclusivity in perpetuity? This was never really outlined and was based on a lot of trust. I also don’t think it was realistic to expect there would never be CW anywhere else, especially if Neutron was seeing the kind of traction that justified that and CW remained useful. Yes ATOM 2.0. wasn’t tied to Neutron, this is why I referred to some things as “non-binding”. I am using it as an example of cases where previous Cosmos Hub contributors set expectations that fell through. At the time I was still working on Duality independently from Neutron, but because of that I can still say from experience that this was a big part of the pitch that CH contributors were making to Replicated Security teams. I don’t think there was ever a perfectly “explicit” agreement for anything wrt ICS, and this is one of its largest failures in hindsight. We can try to interpret forum posts and rehash what the exact implicit agreements…

Excerpt (1190 of 1820 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmic_Validator: Now, Neutron wants to become independent and then they are happy to give 10.8M NTRN for the security budget to just 20 validators. How were these validators selected? You said the best/most aligned, really? We have consistently one of the best uptimes, have been validating the Cosmos hub since 2019 and one of the most active in the forum. Many validators in that list never write here in the forum, joined the Cosmos hub recently and have much worse uptime I think there is a miscommunication. The 10.8M reflects changes in NTRN price from the proposal you’re mentioning until now. If you look at the timestamps, you’ll see they come out to about the same. Cosmic_Validator: Neutron previously allocated 1.8M for the full ~200 Cosmos Hub active set for the security budget, and this idea of using NTRN from the airdrop for the security budget was suggested by us Cosmic Validator. Just to be clear there are numerous mentions of using the NTRN for the security budget in the NTRN community pool proposal. I don’t deny that you all also supported this but I don’t think it’s fair to make it seem like there was avoidance on Neutron’s part to using it…

Excerpt (1198 of 1517 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

The proposal has been updated to provide more clarity on the rational and clarify the scope.

Key items:

• Updated governance votes language to clarify the scope of the proposal, namely Neutron’s migration to a sovereign network and the allocation of NTRN.
• Clarified that the Cosmos Hub’s decision on whether or not to enable permissionless smart-contracts is a separate matter that will be handled in dedicated governance votes.

Elijah: I think there is a miscommunication. The 10.8M reflects changes in NTRN price from the proposal you’re mentioning until now. If you look at the timestamps, you’ll see they come out to about the same. Oh so when it is in your interest you talk about NTRN % of ownership, and in other circumstances you talk about the $ value of NTRN? But this is not the main issue. All validators were subsidizing Neutron, and remember you are still part of replicated security. You can’t just choose a few validators you are friends with and give them 10.8M NTRN, sorry but no. Any validator in the Cosmos hub should have a chance to validate neutron as independent chain and get a piece of the NTRN cake, since you benefitted from all of us, running for years your chain for free mostly paying all costs from our pocket. Either you allow any validator from the hub that wants to validate neutron, or we will vote NO against this proposal to give such a ton of NTRN to your few friend validators, while previously giving just 1.8M to the whole set Elijah: and I continue to support making validators whole for previous services rendered. Neutron promised a lot before launching,…

Excerpt (1199 of 2914 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmic_Validator: Oh so when it is in your interest you talk about NTRN % of ownership, and in other circumstances you talk about the $ value of NTRN? But this is not the main issue. All validators were subsidizing Neutron, and remember you are still part of replicated security. You can’t just choose a few validators you are friends with and give them 10.8M NTRN, sorry but no. Any validator in the Cosmos hub should have a chance to validate neutron as independent chain and get a piece of the NTRN cake, since you benefitted from all of us, running for years your chain for free mostly paying all costs from our pocket. Either you allow any validator from the hub that wants to validate neutron, or we will vote NO against this proposal to give such a ton of NTRN to your few friend validators, while previously giving just 1.8M to the whole set I appreciate the response. Just to level set - I wasn’t involved in validator selection, there is no need to be hostile or make threats to me. I didn’t even write this proposal so I’m not sure why you’re saying that when it’s in my interest I talk about % of ownership but when it’s not I talk in $ value. I am just presenting my…

Excerpt (1193 of 1503 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmic_Validator: Neutron promised a lot before launching, but then 0 revenues for validators for many months. There were so many complaints but no solution. I did a poll on twitter, should we use NTRN from the airdrop in the Cosmos hub community pool to pay a bit validators running neutron? Some liked the idea, others thought it was crazy. Finally, you took my idea and implemented it, not even once you said thank you or even invited to join your hand picked validator set. It’s quite possible this was your idea. If it was I’m sorry for not properly crediting you. To be fair, this was also mentioned in the original proposal as well (it was clearly stated that a good and preferred use of the funds would be to pay for validator security costs). I tend to believe this is the best use (agree with you here) and am advocating for that. Also like I mentioned before - I wasn’t involved in picking the genesis validator set, I’m just representing my experiences here. Cosmic_Validator: -You asked a lot of funding from the Cosmos hub community pool to develop neutron, and promised NTRN in return Like I said before, the CH funding to Neutron was a small minority…

Excerpt (1197 of 3318 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

agent.kwosh:

Which leaves only neutron leaving in this prop. Do you need a prop for that?

Yes there needs to be a proposal because validators need to agree to stop running Neutron’s binary.

I also think it makes sense to pair this with the CP pool ask, because the conditions of the relationship have clearly been changed - the CH is deprecating Replicated Security, and is likely plans of launching a permissionless CW layer.

We are supportive of both of these, but the CP pool funds were clearly allocated under an expectation that the relationship that first existed would continue (this is evident in the wording of the CP pool proposal and the original Neutron ICS proposal).

A fair outcome in light of this would be to give some of that NTRN a mutually beneficial purpose :

1. Use a meaningful amount as ATOM (and Eureka) incentives
2. Use a meaningful amount to pay for security costs rendered up to this point

Which I think this proposal accomplishes pretty decently

Please give me the original link of the proposal you speak of pls.

V tor., 18. mar. 2025, 20:35 je oseba Elijah via Cosmos Hub Forum <[email protected]> napisala:

Cosmic_Validator: Oh so when it is in your interest you talk about NTRN % of ownership, and in other circumstances you talk about the $ value of NTRN? But this is not the main issue. All validators were subsidizing Neutron, and remember you are still part of replicated security. You can’t just choose a few validators you are friends with and give them 10.8M NTRN, sorry but no. Any validator in the Cosmos hub should have a chance to validate neutron as independent chain and get a piece of the NTRN cake, since you benefitted from all of us, running for years your chain for free mostly paying all costs from our pocket. Either you allow any validator from the hub that wants to validate neutron, or we will vote NO against this proposal to give such a ton of NTRN to your few friend validators, while previously giving just 1.8M to the whole set Respectfully, I think you misunderstand how the proposed compensation and staking model will work. Neutron implements a custom module called x/revenue which pays a fixed dollar value to validators based on their performance each month. The proposal doesn’t transfer the tokens to the validators, it simply tops up the system so that it…

Excerpt (1199 of 1688 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Is it unthinkable to have one proposal for Offboarding and one for talk about the HUB’s Neutron, that were given as a thanks for the community?

Here’s the original proposal link : [PROP #835][PASSED] Transfer unclaimed NTRN airdrop tokens to Cosmos Hub I’ve also attached a screenshot for clearer record, it clearly states “the terms of the security agreement between Neutron and the Cosmos Hub…, include the transfer of unclaimed tokens…” Since the terms of the security agreement are now null (RS is being deprecated, permissionless CW is coming to the Cosmos Hub - i.e., Neutron is no longer the CH CW layer) it also makes sense to revisit this allocation. I don’t even mean this in a negative way - as I mentioned previously, I am very excited about the future of the Cosmos Hub under new leadership and the continued prospect of collaboration (hence why some of the NTRN allocation should go to incentives on ATOM and Eureka adoption). But if the agreement shifts, it doesn’t make sense for some of it to conveniently shift, while leaving other large components the same. The Cosmos Hub has the opportunity to reinvigorate it’s brand under new leadership. Part of this will be assuring potential partners that the Cosmos Hub is a reliable partner. And a large part of being a reliable partner is that if an agreement is…

Excerpt (1191 of 1371 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I wouldn’t say it’s “unthinkable”, BUT in my other post I included a screenshot that the NTRN was allocated as part of an agreement though (which is being changed) as such so to should the allocation attributed as part of that agreement.

Also just to emphasize : some of the NTRN is still going to ATOM and Eureka incentives. Others are going to fund past and future validator operations.

Summation on my thoughts:

Neutron is leaving and ICS is being deprecated no matter what.

Split this initiative in to 2 proposals.
-Proposal 1: Neutron is leaving. As part of this, to ensure a smooth transition, we would like to allocate X amount toward validator compensation for services rendered to this point, and to ensure a smooth transition to the sovereign chain.

-Proposal 2: Request for additional CP NTRN for use cases mentioned in initial post other than validator/transition funding.

Ultimately the only contentious part of this is the clawback. The use of the non-validator earmarked funds is where there is a snag for most, i’d imagine.

I recommend anyone who has proper use cases for the funds to speak now, i.e. Informal for use in Hydro. Otherwise, I feel like this isn’t a hill worth dying on and people going nuts over. If Neutron wants a clean break and nobody has any other use cases they want to bang the table for, I’d say just roll with it.

tknox35:

Otherwise, I feel like this isn’t a hill worth dying on and people going nuts over. If Neutron wants a clean break and nobody has any other use cases they want to bang the table for, I’d say just roll with it.

To be fair the rationale is not just that “Neutron should want a clean break”. It’s also that the NTRN in the CP was explictly allocated as part of the original ICS agreement (which is clearly in the process of being broken). Nobody is trying to claw back funds unrightfully here - if an agreement is changed, so too should the payment terms. (Screenshot from the original post is included here for clarity).

There’s no reason why both sides shouldn’t be able to walk away from this excited about their respective directions. There’s no reason to hold either Neutron or the Cosmos Hub back from pursuing exciting visions. But there’s also a fair and reasonable way about going about that which should be honored - if at least because it’s the right thing to do, but at most because it’s an important precedent for the Cosmos Hub to set if it wants to signal it’s a reliable partner for chains moving forward.

At Govmos, we hold mixed feelings regarding this proposal. While we acknowledge its intent, several aspects are highly disputable. Below, we aim to provide clear and consistent reasoning for why we cannot support the proposal in its current form. Key Points of the Proposal The proposal centers on three main topics: • Leaving ICS Replicated Security • Discussing Future Political Alignments • Transferring 40,567,950 NTRN from the Cosmos Hub to a Joint Committee We will address each of these points in detail. 1. Leaving ICS Replicated Security In previous discussions on this forum, we publicly advocated for Neutron to migrate to a smaller validator set using Partial Set Security (PSS) rather than remaining within the Replicated Security framework. While we support Neutron’s decision to leave Replicated Security, we believe the preferable path would have been transitioning to ICS v2.0’s Partial Set Security model instead of pursuing a fully sovereign economic model. 2. Discussing Future Political Alignments This is where we have the strongest criticisms. The proposal states: “The Hub no longer needs an execution environment and wishes to deprecate…

Excerpt (1198 of 3872 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’m a huge fan of Neutron and a lot of the projects deployed on it, and I’m looking forward to this next stage of evolution for both Neutron and the Cosmos Hub. I think this will be a positive change for both.

As for the Cosmos Hub community pool’s NTRN being returned, I don’t feel that I’m qualified enough to have an opinion on whether this is fair, but I will say that if ATOM holders are against it, I think a great alternative could be to use Hydro to deploy it around the ecosystem (this could include both Neutron and other IBC-connected chains). This would allow ATOM holders to continue to govern it, but also put it to good use, improving NTRN’s liquidity across the Cosmos ecosystem and earning additional yield for ATOM holders. Neutron projects could still benefit from it this way too.

Hey Phil, appreciate your detailed thoughts. Let us analyze the problem and find the truth together. 1. Leaving ICS Replicated Security Govmos: While we support Neutron’s decision to leave Replicated Security, we believe the preferable path would have been transitioning to ICS v2.0’s Partial Set Security model or pursuing a fully sovereign economic model. Isn’t pursuing a fully sovereign economic model exactly what this proposal does? 2. Discussing Future Political Alignments Govmos: However, we strongly oppose the following claim: “The Hub will no longer be providing the services it was granted NTRN for, and former Cosmos Hub contributors generally overpromised and failed to deliver on their commitments to the project.” Please consider the following statements: • Neutron entered into an agreement with the Cosmos Hub specifically in the context of Replicated Security, as shown in Proposal #792 • Failing to resume produce blocks for 12 hours or more after the correct instructions and patch has been distributed is a meaningful failure from a validator set. • The Cosmos Hub is making the sovereign decision to deprecate Replicated…

Excerpt (1199 of 2083 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Govmos: In previous discussions on this forum, we publicly advocated for Neutron to migrate to a smaller validator set using Partial Set Security (PSS) rather than remaining within the Replicated Security framework. While we support Neutron’s decision to leave Replicated Security, we believe the preferable path would have been transitioning to ICS v2.0’s Partial Set Security model or pursuing a fully sovereign economic model Respectfully, we’ve had a number of problems with Replicated Security, and this was the service that was paid for with the NTRN airdrop (in addition to a clearly stated expectation that Neutron would the smart contract layer in the Hub). While it might make sense to consider PSS, I don’t think it makes sense to lump that in at the current moment. Many of the issues that existed with PSS came from a lack of alignment between validators and stakers and Neutron (i.e., validators and stakers did not stake NTRN so they had a smaller financial interest). PSS in it’s current form doesn’t address this. Given the experience to this point, I think it’s optimal to go fully sovereign and revisit another security relationship at some point down the line after PSS…

Excerpt (1199 of 3442 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Elijah:

With respect to the 50k ATOM, I agree and would personally support Neutron returning 50k ATOM back to the community pool (I think it makes sense to hold both ecosystems to the same standard).

I think that’s fair. If it allowed both communities to move forward, I would support it.
For what it’s worth, the Neutron Foundation never sold a single ATOM.

My personal opinion is that they should be allowed to leave ICS / PSS / RSS and take their tokens with them (assuming the ATOM is returned to the Cosmos Hub as well). My reasons: • The reputational cost of refusing to let a customer stop using our product here is much higher than any cost to the community treasury of returning NTRN. People already associate Cosmos with drama. We have a chance here to show the world that we can make big changes, kill failed experiments, and launch new products with the speed and focus of a startup. This is a big opportunity to change the narrative and kill drama. • The reality is the product failed Neutron. The team has spent hundreds of hours and lost weeks battling to get centralized exchange validators to upgrade. We’ve learned valuable lessons from their experiences and feedback that we’re going to incorporate going forward • The team is committed to continuing to work with the Hub (e.g. through using Eureka assets and other services from the Hub as they scale their ecosystem and we build out our product offering for app chains). This will drive value back to ATOM and create a win-win scenario out of what is currently a lose lose…

Excerpt (1197 of 2072 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I would love for a merger to be considered as an option on the table. I know this is quite complex and challenging, but i could see how this could be a winning force rather than two cosmwasm ecosystems competing.

I know collaborating is part of the proposal, but i still imagine some level of fracturing. Maybe there are different visions at play, but i think united with deep resources could be a much better way to go.

Thanks to the Neutron team for all the work that went into being a consumer chain and one of the first to adopt it. I know it was not always the smoothest experience, and the Hub learned a lot about what worked and didn’t work from their experience of being the pioneers in adopting ICS. Personally, I can understand returning NTRN to Neutron and ATOM to the Cosmos Hub makes for a clean divorce. However, I feel cross-holding the tokens is what makes the protocols aligned much more closely than the ICS provider-consumer relationship ever did. The Neutron tokens in the community pool are obviously a very large amount that vastly exceeds the ATOM received by Neutron from the Cosmos Hub, but I would still like to see alignment between the Cosmos Hub and Neutron by each holding the others tokens - that said, I think it’s cleanest to end the existing relationship, and let a new relationship emerge. The Hub should invest in its future relationships by being kind and a good partner to work with, and that should in this case be by respecting Neutrons wishes. I hope that Neutron will still find value in acquiring and holding ATOM, and similarly for the Hub holding Neutron tokens, given…

Excerpt (1196 of 1805 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Montagu from Citadel One here,

I share many of the concerns voiced by community members here but I’m leaning towards a Yes as long as the ATOM are returned to the Hub.
The optics of holding the $NTRN tokens hostage would be terrible and would kill any hope of PSS finding pmf in the future.

The strategic thing to do imo, despite the financial downside for the Hub’s CP, is to return the tokens, make sure the upgrade is smooth and leverage this situation to learn from our mistakes and show that the Hub is a reliable partner to have.

I would, however, recommend that the Neutron team reconsider the budget allocated to fund migration:

• The amount should be split equally amongst eligible validators and not pro-rata based on VP. This aligns with the Validator Incentivization distribution model proposed in #867.
• The budget allocated could be improved ( a vesting schedule could be introduced with the revised budget).

Hey folks.

My advice here is to let them go, and give them back their NTRN (they’ll need it to be successful).

We have way bigger fish to fry, and I echo what @bpiv400 said in his comment.

Magmar

I’ll follow with Barry and Mags advice.

bpiv400:

The reputational cost of refusing to let a customer stop using our product here is much higher than any cost to the community treasury of returning NTRN

THIS. Forcing a negligible ransom from a key customer wanting to leave a totally failed product is petty, dumb and dumbfounding.

Let it go people.

Govmos:

we believe the preferable path would have been transitioning to ICS v2.0’s Partial Set Security model instead of pursuing a fully sovereign economic model.

PSS is a partial set shared security hoax.

It’s putting the armored door of Tendermint on a cardboard box.

We shouldn’t be promoting its use (I understand some are stuck w it for now)—especially when you account for naive validator behavior assumptions and critical issues like:

1. Subset problem/incorrect execution issues
2. Lunatic validator
3. Validators DoN’t cHeAt (yet…)

It all seems to work, until it doesn’t.

Go sovereign. Stay sovereign.

The validators chosen to validate the chain are validators from the cosmos hub, once again PSS is a sovereign security model , you choose your validators with PSS in the same way that neutron chose its validators for its sovereign chain, the only difference is that you will slash Atom and therefore reputation on the validators set of the Hub instead of slashing illiquid and centralized tokens. PSS is a way to obtain sovereignty, having a token that you use as a slashing collateral does not mean being more sovereign. We really need to redefine this notion of sovereignty because it is too often used for vampiric purposes. Additionally PSS can also be seen as a technology to scale the hub, I would not be surprised if the current ICL strategy is to fill the hub blocks using EVM contracts and that later, because the cosmos hub blocks are filled PSS is used again to scale with specialized EVM, SVM and of course cosmwasm chains. But I completely agree that letting them go is the best thing to do , while still letting them get their NTRNs back. Neutron has always been sovereign and that’s why he should be able to leave today. (It is important to mention that with the PSS opt-in model,…

Excerpt (1199 of 1327 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I hear you, but characterizing PSS as a sovereignty preserving option (bc you choose the subset) is overstating the case, especially given the economic and validator dependencies it introduces.

I think it’s more of an interdependence model that trades execution autonomy for shared economic security, and that tradeoff deserves a more sober, risk-aware conversation.

Neutron is a ghost chain and replicated security for it certainly was an overkill that cost Cosmos Hub validators a lot of money. Failed experiment, time to move on.

The proposal has been updated with the following changes:

• Added commitment from the Neutron Foundation to return 50,000 ATOM received from Proposal 72 to the Cosmos Hub Community Pool.
• Added signer details and multisig addresses.

The proposal is now live for voting:

Cosmos Hub | Neutron and the Hub: A new chapter

Overview Support Neutron’s graduation to a sovereign network with strong synergies with the Hub Allocate community pool NTRN fairly to support the network’s migration and the adoption of on-chain use

Good luck Neutron with the radical change. I missed the interesting discussion, I know there is nothing we can do about the proposal right now but it would still be appreciated if you can answer a few questions

Neutron:

CryptoCrew, Quokka Stake, Allnodes, Chorus One, cosmosrescue, Cosmostation, Crosnest, Golden Ratio Staking, Hadron Labs, Informal Systems, iqlusion, Kiln, P2P, Polkachu, POSTHUMAN, Provalidator, SG-1, Smart Stake, Stake&Relax, Stakecito.

What characteristics do these validators have that others missed?
Were there any applications?
Is there any transparency report for the process?

Elijah:

I think there is a miscommunication. The 10.8M reflects changes in NTRN price from the proposal you’re mentioning until now. If you look at the timestamps, you’ll see they come out to about the same.

You must forgetting, currently it translates into ~3500 USD/month/val , a year back when it was implemented it was ~1000USD/month/Validator

nope. there wont be =)

those are internal, closer to the team validators =)

you have vals, NOT on this list providing tools, infra and media for neutron in much larger amounts than half the list above, but no one cares. Let alone geographical and DC centralization

There are currently 175 cosmos hub validators. The goal of having only 20 will unquestionably have 155 that weren’t selected and therefore would be unhappy with the result.

Metrics for selection have been shared already, there definitely were some that we would’ve liked to select as well but we simply couldn’t because of the set size. As shared before though, with Drop managing the validator set delegations going forward, there might be some changes in the set selection.

Hi guys,

As a recent winner of New User Of The Month (Check my badges), I feel like my opinion holds weight.

I think validators should be paying Neutron for the right to validate, rather than Neutron paying validators.

It is an honour and a privilege to validate such a chain.

Thank you.

Silence for 2 days.

Sounds like my idea leaves you all speechless.

ICS chains should have the freedom to come and go. Desire nothing but the best for Neutron.

Neutron:

Neutron Foundation has committed to return 50,000 ATOM received as part of Proposal 72

Not seeing any statement of when exactly the ATOM will be returned?

Seems to be a pattern of trying to package many separate topics into one proposal, which is understandable. Cannot support #993 unless this proposal is split, as proposed by others.

The Joint committee received 44,624 dAtom, equivalent to the 50,000 ATOM from the Neutron Foundation. In turn the Joint Committee has successfully transfered the dAtom to the Cosmos Hub community pool (see transaction here ).

Also the 1M ntrn for the migration was already sent to validators or not yet?

Not yet, will get sorted next week hopefully, need to gather the KPI data.

luisqa:

dAtom

Neutron:

Neutron Foundation has committed to return 50,000 ATOM received as part of Proposal 72 to the Cosmos Hub Community Pool.

Thank you for your response, but am I missing something here? dAtom is a liquid-staked derivative, no?

Correct, foundation holds dAtom to not be diluted on inflation. We consulted the Joint Committee if it was ok since providing ATOM would delay the return of tokens for a month because of the un-staking period, they communicated dAtom was ok.

Prop#993:

…the Neutron Foundation has committed to return 50,000 ATOM received…" not dAtom (liquid staked derivative).

Neutron:

liquid staked its holdings with Stride, then with Drop to support the adoption of ATOM liquid staking.

Although I appreciate the Joint Committee’s work and time, the committed ATOM is to be returned regardless the month delay.

Oh no. How horrific they return something quickly that can earn yield and be redeemed 1:1 easily.

@tknox35 We both strive to maintain the security of the Cosmos Hub, which is why we are here on this forum. Prop993 stated what would be returned, and it was not liquid staked dAtom.

@luisqa Would you kindly share when the ATOM will be returned? Thank you.

See above. The dAtom equivalent amount is already in the community pool.

[PROPOSAL 993][DRAFT] Neutron and the Hub: A new chapter Hub Proposals

The Joint committee received 44,624 dAtom, equivalent to the 50,000 ATOM from the Neutron Foundation. In turn the Joint Committee has successfully transfered the dAtom to the Cosmos Hub community pool (see transaction here ).

luisqa:

they communicated dAtom was ok

Are “they” the entire Cosmos Hub “community?” In addition, the official Proposal993 states “ATOM” will be returned, NOT liquid staked ATOM (dAtom).

Good to know some, who are here for “Cosmos Hub,” are completely fine accepting 1:1 “coupons” as a form of repayment to the CP. Let alone holding onto voting strength through this.

Asking again, kindly,
@Neutron & Joint Committee:
@luisqa @agent.kwosh @Spaydh

when will the committed ATOM (not liquid staked 1:1 dAtom) be returned?

Feel free to create a governance proposal about it. I will stop replying about this issue now.

any update about this? when done can you provide an update here rather than we asking if this has been implemented or not?

My 2c: we can easily unwind this dATOM if the community wishes via CP prop. It will always be worth 50,000 ATOM or more unless the protocol crashes. This would be the same as transferring the dATOM back to Neutron, having them unwind it, then receiving ATOM.

@FHZ since the transfer of dATOM was already executed, can you put up this prop?

Speechless.

Prop993 clearly stated on-chain what Neutron was committed to returning. Genuinely confused as to why are we having this back-and-forth RE this. Is this the future of governance?

Are we saying Neutron does not honor proposal integrity? Surely, that is not the case.

If we are talking about protocol crashes, which sincerely hope never happens, are we then saying we are fine with Drop protocol’s dATOMs in the Hub’s CP, versus having the original ATOM returned in the first place?

Neutron:

Migration coverage 1,000,000 2.34% Joint committee

Please share the details of the velidators who are getting this migration coverage?

Seems convenient to have Neutron enter into a new chapter, disregarding 993’s commitment to return native ATOM back to the CP (while instead returning a derivative version), aligned with 994’s timing, which stops the consumer chain phase on May 13th (Tuesday).

Would Neutron, without wasting resources on a new, unnecessary proposal, still be able to return the native ATOM (after May 13th), without the Hub needing to “claw back,” sort of speak.

@Cosmos_Nanny Not to bother, but does this not concern the Oversight Committee wrt ATOM?

FHZ:

aligned with 994’s timing, which stops the consumer chain phase on May 13th (Tuesday)

Chiming in here to clarify that 994 has no impact on the technical relationship between neutron-1 and cosmoshub-4 - it is a clerical change on the Hub’s side to ensure that validator queries list consumer chains and has to validate and show only chains that are actually available or required, respectively.

We suggest directing the dATOM funds to Hydro, which is well equipped to manage the necessary allocation processes efficiently. Integrating these assets into the general liquidity auction mechanism appears to be a far more effective and purposeful approach than transferring them to the Community Pool, where they currently lack a clearly defined use case.

Thank you, @lexa for providing this clarification. I appreciate your time, anyone’s time, engaging, regardless of differing opinions.

In short, this means Neutron still has the ability to return the commited ATOM, correct? Does sending liquid stake, via Drop, not enable Neutron to retain its voting?

It seems Neutron reset a standard RE Cosmos Hub’s on-chain governance. Conveniently after reaching its new chapter. Does this not tell the broader Hub community that what is stated through on-chain proposals does not really mean anything?

FHZ:

@Cosmos_Nanny Not to bother, but does this not concern the Oversight Committee wrt ATOM?

Hey there, just to clarify, I’m on the Oversight Committee for AADAO specifically, not for the Hub more broadly (though the Hub could probably use one).

Let me catch up on what’s happening, and I’ll follow up with any suggestions, if any.

luisqa:

Not yet, will get sorted next week hopefully, need to gather the KPI data.

Any update about this? You mentioned one week and it has been over a month already