[IDEA] ATOM Shield: Emergency Freezing and Governance-Based Asset Recovery for Cosmos Hub

Disclaimer: This is an independent proposal from an ordinary Cosmos community member. I am not affiliated with Cosmos Labs, the Interchain Foundation, or the Cosmos Hub development team. This is not an official initiative or a finalized technical specification. My intention is to share an idea and gather community feedback. TL;DR I would like to propose exploring ATOM Shield , a limited emergency freezing mechanism for native ATOM on the Cosmos Hub. The goal is to prevent stolen ATOM from being moved further during major security incidents, without halting the entire network, while leaving final decisions to decentralized governance. The proposed mechanism would work as follows: • 1 Security Council member: Initiates an immediate freeze lasting up to 1 hour. • Additional Council approval: Extends the freeze for up to 24 hours from the initial action. • At least 2/3 of all active Council members within 24 hours: Confirms the freeze until governance reaches a decision. • Cosmos Hub governance: Decides whether to unfreeze, maintain the freeze, or authorize recovery of the assets. • Failure to meet approval thresholds: Results in automatic unfreezing. The…

Excerpt (1198 of 9540 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Keeping the council to freezing only, with an automatic unfreeze when the approvals don’t arrive, is a good base for this. The spec should say what a freeze covers at an address, because native ATOM isn’t the only form the value takes there. MsgTokenizeShares in x/liquid turns a delegation into a share token, a normal bank denom that whoever holds it can redeem for the delegation, and IBC vouchers sit at the same address. A freeze on uatom alone leaves both movable. Blocking every denom the address sends, in the bank send path, covers them and also blocks tokenizing, since MsgTokenizeShares sends uatom from the delegator inside the same transaction. The same rule needs to keep module accounts and ICS-20 escrow addresses off the list: unescrow is a bank send from the escrow address, so a frozen escrow would fail every ATOM transfer coming back to the Hub on that channel, and the sender would get a refund on the other side. On the limits for a single member: by the time the first freeze lands the funds can already be split, and MultiSend on the Hub takes up to 500 outputs in one message. Per-member caps on simultaneous freezes would run out long before that. Caps per incident,…

Excerpt (1197 of 1373 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thanks for the detailed feedback! I think these are really good points, especially the idea of tracing freezes. If we can minimize the risk of affecting innocent users, I think it could be a good idea.

Hi @iaminpwd welcome to the forums and thank you for submitting this idea! Great way to start your Hub forum journey I think the Arbitrum security council is a great example of a model that could work for an emergency response mechanism for the Cosmos Hub. As you mentioned, this model has been effective in helping secure stolen assets after major exploits like the Binance hack. This has been something that has been top of mind for me as well, especially following the Neutron governance incident and some of the other security incidents like September’s CosmWasm vulnerability (which thankfully was patched undiscovered). One piece of feedback i might offer is on this component of the ATOM Shield idea: iaminpwd: Phase 1 — Immediate Emergency Freeze When a major exploit is identified, a single authorized Security Council member could submit supporting evidence and immediately freeze ATOM held at a specific address. The initial freeze would last up to 1 hour . The purpose is to prevent attackers from moving funds while multiple Council members are coordinating their response. To limit potential abuse, individual members would face restrictions on the number of…

Excerpt (1198 of 2436 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback! The risk of key compromise was something I hadn’t fully considered, and I agree with your concerns.

As you suggested, I think removing unilateral freezing authority and strengthening IBC and third-party bridge rate limits to give multiple Security Council members enough time to authorize a freeze would be a more reasonable approach.

While rate limits alone may not prevent every potential outflow, I believe this approach could reduce the risks associated with compromised keys while preserving the original purpose of ATOM Shield.