Why ICS Deprecation?

Update for the community on why Cosmos Labs is considering shutting down ICS (Interchain Security). Here are the main arguments shared by Robo during Cosmoverse in the official Cosmos Telegram group along with an analysis of how valid they really are. The arguments from Robo 1000018443 904×1386 269 KB 1. “Nobody wants to use it.” This was mostly true for ICS v1. Adoption was low because it was: • complex to integrate • highly centralized (the Hub controlled governance) • and costly compared to the benefits. But newer models like Partial Set Security (PSS) and Opt-in Security directly fix this: • Chains can choose which validators secure them • and only pay for the portion they actually use. So while the early version failed to attract users, the updated models have real potential and I want to remember that Public chains are using it. Stride, Intento, Elys, neutron, dungeon. Some of them left because of CL missalignement with their roadmap and lack support. 2. “It’s expensive for validators.” True. Under ICS v1, every validator on the Hub had to run every consumer chain which made it expensive and difficult to scale. Partial Set Security…

Excerpt (1193 of 5803 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hey Guinch,

Thank you for putting this thought process on the table.

As a simple but dedicated community member, I’ve been quite skeptical about shutting down PSS — mainly because, in my view, shared security just isn’t market-fit yet.

POA seems to be becoming the new model everyone is aiming for, but doesn’t it carry some fundamental weaknesses?

Shared security could become truly relevant once institutions seeking sovereignty realize that true decentralization and economic security cannot be built out of nothing.

ATOM, as a commodity, is still the perfect asset to implement this kind of service. And honestly, when your chain is driving millions in volume, can you really afford to go without real security?

Just saying …

ATOM community : stay strong. Our time will come.