[PASSED] Enable Permissionless CosmWasm Deployment on Cosmos Hub
Today, CosmWasm (CW) is permissioned on the Cosmos Hub. This means that in order to deploy a contract, an address must first be whitelisted via an on-chain vote. Once whitelisted, that address can deploy as many contracts as it wants without going through governance again—unless its permission is later revoked. Current situation: Very few deployments are happening on the Hub. Suspected reasons: -A project needs visibility and certainty to get started. It’s hard to convince investors with a pitch like: “We’ll build for months, but we’re not sure if we’ll be allowed to deploy.” -The process is too slow and clunky, due to slow or inefficient governance. -Teams are sometimes reluctant to expose themselves publicly or be judged in a vote. -The whitelisting mechanism lacks granularity: once approved, an actor can deploy unlimited contracts without further review. -The Hub isn’t seen as a developer-friendly environment compared to simpler and faster alternatives (Neutron, Osmosis, etc.). -Low current activity creates a loop of inertia: low usage = low attractiveness. Proposed idea: Simplify the process or enable permissionless CosmWasm deployment on the Hub.…
Excerpt (1191 of 2803 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I support allowing permissionless CosmWasm deployment on the Cosmos Hub.
Right now, developers need approval from governance before they can deploy smart contracts. This slows things down and makes the Hub less attractive for new projects.
Other chains like Neutron already allow open deployment — and so far, it’s working well, with no big problems.
CosmWasm is a powerful tool. It’s safe, flexible, and already used in real apps. If we make it easier to use on the Hub, more builders will come.
Strategy 2 is the best path for now:
Keep CosmWasm on the Hub and launch a new open EVM chain managed by the community.
Let’s make the Hub easier to build on. Open up CosmWasm deployment.
What I like about this prop is that I can see a tonne of people wanting to try to build on Cosmos Hub as it still maintains its status as centre of the cosmoverse
That in itself will attract builders
I get if the community ultimately wants to keep it permissioned, but I would just hope that as a community we’d be more open to allowing builders to be whitelisted easier
I think some people underestimate the honour builders would feel building on the Hub as opposed to other chains
Ultimately being permissionless makes it easiest, so unless there are some legal rramifications I don’t understand, I will vote yes on this prop
I think it’s a good compromise — on one hand, we let the ICL focus on institutional use cases, and in parallel, the community can also work to increase Atom value / utility.
For CosmWasm to be truly useful on the Hub, the tokenfactory module would need to be included. Without it, smart contracts can’t create native tokens.
Access from CosmWasm to the “liquid” (LSM) module — which is specific to the Hub — would also be necessary to differentiate it from other cosmwasm chains.
As far as I remember, tokenfactory was already planned before the ICL changed direction.
So maybe it’s doable quickly then.
I really like this proposal.
One of the first proposals I fully support. Allow a free market and teams to deploy without a popularity contest!
Permissioned deployments are often just an inhibitor for teams to deploy their contracts because it is a massive overhead for them.
Thank you for initiating this much-needed discussion on the future of CosmWasm (CW) deployment on the Cosmos Hub. We appreciate the clarity in outlining the current limitations and strategic options under consideration. After reviewing the context and available paths, we wish to express our support for Strategy 2 : “Keep CosmWasm on the Hub, and create a permissionless EVM chain governed by the Hub with ATOM as the gas token.” This path aligns with the following key objectives: 1. Preserve Strategic Value CosmWasm is deeply integrated in the Cosmos ecosystem and remains a critical component of ongoing projects like Hydro. Removing it from the Hub could create unnecessary fragmentation and weaken the Hub’s technical role. 2. Enable Growth Without Delay A permissionless EVM chain governed by the Hub offers immediate utility for developers and users. It can be implemented quickly, at low cost, and will strengthen the ATOM economy through exclusive gas usage. 3. Balance Trust and Flexibility Keeping CosmWasm permissioned on the Hub ensures high-trust deployments for public-good infrastructure. In parallel, the new EVM environment will support permissionless…
Excerpt (1199 of 2499 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I’m not opposed, but it’s incongruent with the strategic direction of ICL, so I don’t know how much support it will get, and there is a severe shortage of Cosmwasm development talent left. I don’t see how this does much for the hub in the short or medium term without any developers willing to build on the hub specifically.
It seems there is two questions:
1. Does the community want to implement strategy 2 ?
2. And if so, should CosmWasm on the Hub become permissionless ?
We should make sure the proposal for strategy 2 doesn’t fail simply because it includes permissionless CosmWasm!?
I think we can make two proposals: one for the EVM PSS chain and another for the permissionless CW. There is no need to link the two proposals.
The prop is only related to permissionless Cosmwasm. Strat 2 was for context
some teams are identified to deploy on the hub. And some apps would migrate to the hub as well
Strategy 2 : let’s go ! 
Thanks for putting up the proposal! I want to share some thoughts. These are my personal views, not the official views of ICL or ICF. TL;DR: I don’t support adding permissionless CosmWasm to the Hub because (1) it won’t create meaningful value for ATOM without heavy, ongoing community subsidies to bootstrap apps, (2) if the Hub does pursue a permissionless VM, the EVM is far more strategically valuable and future-proof, and (3) it risks confusing Cosmos’ mission by shifting focus away from where it has real product-market fit: supporting chain developers rather than competing with them. I don’t support this proposal for three reasons: 1. Further investment required: This underestimates the cost and effort required to attract developers and users. Even after years of work on CosmWasm, strong teams like Neutron and Archway still see most activity coming from apps they built or incubated themselves. If the community wants to go this route, we should expect the platform to mostly sit idle unless we also fund and incubate first-party applications extensively 2. The EVM is a more strategic choice. If the community does want a permissionless VM, the EVM is the far better option.…
Excerpt (1198 of 3818 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Thanks for your reply Barry. I understand your reasoning. I think several hundred people are convinced that AEZ should be a technical support to any type of application developer, by which I mean that AEZ should support EVM, CW, SVW … Maybe you are right and CW will not have any traction without incentive (and we already see it, so it would not change from the current situation, and would therefore be a non-event). If we have the agreement of the ICL and its support, we (the community) could build this chain with the parameters expressed above to relieve the ICL of this additional workload. But the associated maintenance costs as well as other resources will have to be implemented anyway with EVM, which has been paused by yourself for cost reasons. Perhaps we can take the risk of doing both, and see what happens in the short and medium term, with the perspective necessary for a proper market analysis.
These objections don’t make sense to me.
- Further investment is not required. You simply don’t have to fund apps nor run incentivization campaigns. Unless you have connections, you don’t get funded anywhere anyways. This objection is not relevant to the proposal.
- You already torched the EVM path by hyping up we were going with EVM and then screwing all the teams that were on board. If you wanted the EVM, you should have stuck with it. You’re asking us to realistically do nothing, as everyone has said for years, as the token plummets to 0. We’re able to implement permissionless CW right now. You had your chance and abandoned EVM.
- Again seems to make no sense. People won’t come to atom because there’s more than 1 thing it does? Seems ridiculous.
I am in agreement with Barry - I would love to see a way for the community to deploy things permissionlessly on the Hub, but CosmWasm is kind of an awkward choice that will cause downstream problems for us as the ICL and the community. EVM PSS is much better, because we could actually integrate some amazing EVM projects into it that could become a distribution mechanism for ATOM (think - Chainlink prices over IBC from the Hub). It also keeps the Hub safer by separating the permissionless smart contracts from the core binary. To add to Barry’s points: • We just stopped maintaining CosmWasm. We don’t have engineers that know CosmWasm. Given we maintain and develop the Hub, this would be a huge unknown going forward. Neutron maintains CosmWasm, but it’s unclear right now how much help we’ll be able to get from them. • “If you do something, do it well” → this would not be doing CosmWasm well. This is why we shut down the EVM - even with the full focus of the company and 10s of millions, we still could not do it well enough to compete with massively funded players. We have shifted focus, this would be a step back for us, as we are definitely going to want to make sure it’s (1)…
Excerpt (1198 of 1884 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Voted yes, will deploy this and some other apps if it passes
The truth is there is so much more money in Solana that most rust apps just get deployed or sold there, it’s what I’ve done as well. No money in Cosmos, and if this passes it sounds like there still won’t be any money (from mag’s comment above). But, people like me will still deploy things to the hub just to support the community. Not worth it to do on any other cosmos chain and certainly not worth it to go through the permissioned blah blah.
No… Build your own chain. Running permissionless CosmWasm on the Hub is too dangerous.
It’s already live. Passed a couple days ago.
I generally agree that the current whitelisting model creates significant friction for developers and may be contributing to the lack of CosmWasm activity on the Hub. However, I wonder whether the discussion should be framed as a binary choice between permissioned and permissionless deployment. One of the concerns mentioned in the post is that the current system lacks granularity: once an address is approved, it can deploy an unlimited number of contracts. Ironically, this means the current model already relies heavily on trust after the initial governance approval. Would it make sense to explore intermediate approaches before moving to fully permissionless deployment? For example: • Permissionless deployment combined with higher upload fees. • Contract registration requirements for frontend discoverability. • Rate limits for newly created deployer accounts. • Additional scrutiny only for contracts seeking protocol-level integrations or special privileges. This could reduce developer onboarding friction while preserving some safeguards for the Hub ecosystem. I’m also curious whether there is data available comparing CosmWasm deployment activity across…
Excerpt (1195 of 1640 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
permissionless is already live now.