[PROPOSAL #69][REJECTED] Include CosmWasm in Rho Upgrade

Change log 2022-04-27 formatting changes 2022-04-25 LAST CALL 2022-04-07 Initial proposal for comment Include CosmWasm in Rho Upgrade Summary Signaling proposal to include CosmWasm on the Cosmos Hub in v8-Rho upgrade targeting Q2 2022. Further details and discussion at [PROPOSAL #69][REJECTED] Include CosmWasm in Rho Upgrade . Details This is a signaling proposal to include CosmWasm in the v8-Rho upgrade. The Cosmos Hub team at Interchain GmbH has done technical feasibility research by speaking with CosmWasm core contributors and validators to understand the burden of integration and believe it is technically feasible with resources in Interchain GmbH and Lido as well as regular advice meetings from Confio. The instance of CosmWasm included on the Cosmos Hub will be governance gated and use Cosmos SDK v0.46.x. The governance feature set created by Confio, funded by Prop 25 , works so that all of the wasmd Message types can be executed by the chain’s governance module. These messages all otherwise have configurations so that they can be executed by one account, any account, or no accounts. Each message type should be set to “no account” so that it is only possible…

Excerpt (1197 of 2254 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hello, I’m the author of this proposal, Billy Rennekamp. I’m the Cosmos Hub Product Lead at Interchain GmbH. My job is to help coordinate and integrate the various contributions to the gaia binary that runs the Cosmos Hub so that it is ready for Upgrade Proposals. This is done with an engineering team at Interchain GmbH as well as support from various Core Contributor organizations like Informal Systems, Iqlusion, Strangelove, Regen, Confio and others. It would be a waste of my time (and others) if significant work is performed preparing an upgrade that includes CosmWasm if the community ends up rejecting the Upgrade Proposal because of its inclusion. To ensure that developer resources are well allocated I’m requesting a signal proposal to determine whether CosmWasm be included in v8-Rho. Please note: I am not including a signaling proposal for other items on the Cosmos Hub Roadmap at this time because I have not detected as much need for discussion around the inclusion of those features. All features are voted on with the actual upgrade proposal. However, in order to not overload the Cosmos governance system with votes on every decision, I am approaching proposals with an…

Excerpt (1195 of 10433 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

For me, the most important thing here is that I want the Hub to be a major venue by which synethic assets from users of the iqlusion liquid staking module are issued. Lido wants to be the first operator to issue from the Hub. If we deploy the liquid staking module without having cosmoswasm available, there is a strong possibility that some other chain will take over the asset issuer role.

Interchain staking is making great progress but using interchain staking for issuance requires a lot of complex engineering around interchain queries that Quicksilver is taking on. It’s good to have multiple paths to success instead of betting on one technical direction.

Hi,
what is the exact actor model for this smart contract proposal? Is the implementation synchronous like EVM? Or is it mixed synchronousa on a given blockchain and asynchronous across different blockchain (IBC)?
Thank you

This is a governance gated instance of CosmWasm. Meaning that it works the exact same as other instances of CosmWasm (access to IBC) but the deployment of contracts must pass through a governance vote before being deployed.

It is synchronous within the Cosmos Hub but asynchronous over IBC (as all IBC is async).

Why does this need to be on the hub, and not another zone?

Why do you think the benefits outweigh the risks?

@okwme

Oppose CosmWasm & liquid staking cosmwasm contract on the CosmosHub. Cosmos hub should stay minimal, credible neutral , and not complete with other cosmos zones like juno, quicksilver, pstake etc.
IMO devs should start a separate cosmwasm zones that utilize upcoming replicated interchain security instead of deploy cosmwasm on the hub.

responding in detail per instructions in prop 69 mintscan.io Mintscan Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks. Notional’s Vote: No mintscan.io Mintscan Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks. github.com/cosmos/gaia Generalized bloat opened 11:25AM - 27 Feb 21 UTC closed 09:47AM - 14 Dec 21 UTC faddat I'm of the opinion that economic growth, along with with DEX implementation & IB … C is going to lead to a scenario I've named "generalized bloat". It was originally named something else, but we will no longer refer to the problem this way. https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-draft-gaia-v8-rho-upgrade/6570/4 The Generalized bloat situation is going to at least affect validators and exchanges, but will also likely touch on other matters, as well. ## Generalized bloat * https://github.com/cosmos/gaia/issues/670 * https://github.com/cosmos/gaia/issues/669 * Validators are more expensive to operate * Sync times are lengthened (though state sync takes…

Excerpt (1199 of 10201 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This is far from my preferred medium of communication, so I’m apologizing for any errors in advance. • Lowering the Burden on Validators and Maintainers for New Cosmos Hub Features We should achieve this desirable goal by fixing the module system in CosmosSDK, adding a new module to the hub strictly speaking makes this problem worse. (which Billy touches on in later points.) A software release and upgrade includes launching and running a public testnet to simulate the upgrade proposal with a validator set from the Cosmos Hub and chain state that mimics the live Cosmos Hub. This is a good process, if it’s clunky someone should do the boring work of making it work better, not completely throw it away. Finally, all validators of the Cosmos Hub need to prepare for the upgrade and take measures to update their nodes at the right height or configure Cosmovisor to run the upgrade process automatically. Again, the solution here is to automate updates, not just jump ship to some new sexy thing. With CosmWasm on the hub, it’s possible for anyone who writes a smart contract to add functionality to the Cosmos Hub. I can’t stress enough how bad this sounds,…

Excerpt (1197 of 3542 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Harsh but fair. I feel like prop 69 should have actually dealt with scope. I am comfortable with evolution via governance and I figure a veto on 69 is therefore a bad idea: while there is a hub minimalist community, there is no defining document for the hub. I think Gaia needs that, because that can make future decisions easier. But if you look at the code what we can see is that the governance module is pretty much gone and that validators are expected to follow governance decisions. There are no: • protections for users • scope restriction policies • statements of purpose • limitations on what gov can and cannot do I think that all four of these items would be useful. Currently all of these items live in different peoples minds and that is why we have such variability on them. So I would say that over the next year, some thing that can really focus and refine the efforts of communities in cosmos, is constitutions the layout at minimum does four points above but possibly more as well. I would like to give a few examples of recent events in governance that leave me to believe that we need guidance, official themes, or constitutions. • the Juno whale • osmo…

Excerpt (1198 of 1675 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

The clear purpose of deploying CosmWasm on the Hub is to enable the issuance of synthetic assets built on top of the iqlusion liquid staking mechanism. We have the following goals here. • Synchronous access to the state of staked atoms, current issuance rate, staking rewards etc provided by cosmwasm on the Hub. • A competitive marketplace of synethetic asset creators. Iqlusion has been working with Lido on an initial release but we hope for additional issuers to the join the community. Cosmwasm on the Hub strikes a solid balance here. Adoption of liquid staking for ATOM is critical to align ATOM tokenomics with the rest of the Cosmos ecosystem, reducing amount of issuance that needs to be there to reward takers and provide new ways for ATOM stakers to stack rewards with liquidity mining etc. Iqlusion has been supporting both the Lido design and the asynchronous interchain security based design of Quicksilver as issuers but there are substantial timeline and opportunity cost risks if the Hub choses to only asynchronous designs for issuance. Quicksilver’s work will open a new possibility space but it’s a mistake for ATOM to act as if that work is both complete…

Excerpt (1196 of 1443 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hey Zaki, I have a few questions I’m hoping you (or anyone else qualified to answer) could elaborate on:

1. If a validator is slashed for improper activity, what happens to their synthetic ATOM if its being used to LP (or something else) on another chain?

2. Is the thought process that liquid staking opens up more opportunity for ATOM yield generation, therefore we can decrease issuance rate at a later date, or is there some baked in function with liquid staking that will lead to an issuance drop?

3. If liquid staking doesn’t go live until interchain queries are in production via Quicksilver (or elsewhere), does that impact something else further downstream in the Hub roadmap? Outside of additional yield opportunities for us ATOM holders/stakers in the short term.

4. We all know and appreciate that a ton of work has been done to get it to this point, and a rejection of this proposal would be discouraging to the teams that have been dedicated to seeing this go live. This is a delicate situation overall.

zaki_iqlusion:

Adoption of liquid staking for ATOM is critical to align ATOM tokenomics with the rest of the Cosmos ecosystem, reducing amount of issuance that needs to be there to reward takers and provide new ways for ATOM stakers to stack rewards with liquidity mining etc.

I get that people feel this way. Ultimately, it’s not a technical question, it depends entirely on how people feel about these various risks. I have 2 major points:

1. This is obviously against a hub minimalist model.
2. This effort could have been spent changing the development/governance process so that these functions could have been applied in a more secure way.

I’m too cynical at this point to question why 2 wasn’t done, in spite of its clear benefits.

This isn’t the worst possible solution and it’s better than doing nothing. But once this stops the howling wolves, who is going to spend the political clout (and money) to keep this safe? (My guess is no one.)

Yeah, I strongly agree with this.

A document doesn’t exist because making it would be contentious and not having one dramatically increases the agility of the chain’s narrative.

I’m not an expert in markets, but it seems like we can maintain some philosophical purity on the engineering side while still satiating The Narrative. That’s pure conjecture on my part, so I understand why that particular risk is so unappealing.

Without being a formal programmer, I voted against because I prefer a minimalistic hub. For me Cosmos Hub provides stability for the Cosmos Ecosystem.
My gut tells me that goal is easier to achieve without any formal entity or commitment force such as projects, websites, companies, big bucks, roadmaps, etc.
If by evolving Cosmos Hub in a more complex network will make the creation of new chains more difficult, I prefer to keep it as it is. IMHO.

Another update from me: github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk docs: clarify language about censor threshold as one third + 1 `cosmos:main` ← `hxrts:censor-range` opened 10:25AM - 02 May 22 UTC hxrts +1 -1 <!-- The default pull request template is for types feat, fix, or refactor. Fo … r other templates, add one of the following parameters to the url: - template=docs.md - template=other.md --> ## Description Documentation fix to clarify censorship threshold language. This came up because the "No with Veto" proposal justification involves censorship at 1/3 + 1 voting power. See https://github.com/cosmos/governance/pull/32 --- ### Author Checklist *All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and please add links to any relevant follow up issues.* I have... - [ ] included the correct [type prefix](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title - [ ] added `!` to the type prefix if API or client breaking change - [ ] targeted the correct branch (see [PR…

Excerpt (1129 of 2683 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Adding WASM to the hub is harmful to the purpose of the hub

Not in favor of this proposal. I am not qualified enough to comment on the security risk element of it. Others have done it very well above. But this proposal does not sit with me for two reasons: • Hub value prop and ATOM value accrual: I think this proposal removes the credible neutrality the hub has maintained and adding the security risk element makes the Hub a less suitable candidate for a ICS provider chain. The way I see it shared security and further IBC innovation is the major source of future ATOM value accrual and having CosmWasm on the Hub creates the risk of the Hub not being an adequate security provider. • Liquid staking: I think it has been said above that Liquid staking is the explicit aim of this proposal. While I think liquid staking is inevitable for ATOM, the Lido iteration is a less than ideal solution. I think its very centralized and having this tailor made proposal for them is not right. I think there are much better liquid staking solutions out there. So CosmWasm is not equal to liquid staking, far from it. And I would guess that a liquid staking protocol would work better as a sovereign chain than on the Hub. I like the slim vs fat Gaia…

Excerpt (1193 of 1839 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Vasiliy from Lido (also from P2P Validator). I think that this proposal should be voted for, however unlikely that does sound now. The arguments for are: • it gets a new way to deploy code to Cosmos Hub for developers • it allows us and everyone else build a liquid staking solution for Cosmos Hub (and later for the whole Cosmos ecosystem) that is under Hub’s governance Arguments against are: • cosmwasm will increase technical risks for Cosmos Hub • slim hub is better hub • interchain security will make this upgrade unneeded • “we don’t like Lido” Well, right now there’s nothin on Cosmos Hub that would make it a better hub than the competition. There’s no useful things happening on Hub beyond providing fiat off/on ramp (which is important, but Terra or Crypto.com do it just as well); if you look at the map of zones, Cosmos Hub only drives about 16% of IBC volume for the last 30 days. It’s increasingly visible that hubbinness in the IBC ecosystems comes from utility. A slim zone with no utility will not be a hub, however good their validator set (not a moat; can be replicated) is or however credibly neutral (which I don’t think Hub is - governance is quite…

Excerpt (1192 of 3269 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’m against liquid staking in general because it removes the security given by the stake and unbonding delay in the first place, adds intermediares that can accumulate power without responsibility, and opens a fast exit door for mercenaries and vandals. Especially if you add “smart” contract execution for the whole chain (not sure if I understood this part correctly).

“Opportunity makes the thief”:

1. develop a shiny but sneaky contract that attacks the network in any way (or adds an attack vector)
2. accumulate ATOM
3. vote for the “upgrade” with your big stake (you can even bribe off-chain)
4. slowly unstake ATOM and swap it for stkATOM derivative, while creating hype about the new features
5. sell the stkATOM and launch the attack, leaving the cost to the other ignorant stakeholders

This would be doable until there is fiat money and central bankers allowing for immediate creation of capital out of thin air, or there are a lot of derivaties around.

I’m a noob in this ecosystem but I know something about economy, governance, human behaviour.
I would appreciate you pointing any flaws in my reasoning, thank you.

Hi lido,

I heard that you’re in fact zombies who specialize in the consumption of human flesh.

Luckily, I do not believe everything I hear, and I am glad you dropped in.

Can you please tell us more about lido is, and can you please assume that the reader doesn’t have any context?

Honestly all I’ve heard is… not great but it sounded hyperbolic and I think a decent starting place would be to learn more about your product, vision and team.

Thanks
-Jacob

I don’t think this is possible given the current implementations being discussed. That being said, these are exactly the sorts of hypotheticals we should not need to worry about, but someone now has to communicate with the community and provide evidence that these attacks are not possible. The community will also have the burden of making sure every additional change does not add such attacks.

It makes no sense to rush this proposal, I don’t understand why people try to push it so hard. You don’t implement a change like this without months of testing in my opinion. I thought we will get a Testnet soon, so why not use the Testnet for this stuff and test the implementation for months there with real economic value. If it is succesful, we can implement it on the Hub.

To be fair, this is a signaling proposal…nothing’s being rushed; it’s a temperature check to see if devs should even begin the work of integrating. There also seems to be some misunderstanding around testing and release of each upgrade. We launch a testnet for each release and the Theta testnet is still live for anyone who wants to use it from the previous upgrade. If the proposal were to pass, there will be a Rho testnet that will be launched for the exact purpose of testing all of the proposed changes listed in the Hub’s roadmap. If something fails on the testnet, then the upgrade gets pushed back until there’s a fix and that gets tested as well.

This is not the same, people have no reason to attack a testnet without real economic value.

Hi Jacob, Thanks for the question ‘What is Lido?’ which I’m very happy to answer here for the community. Lido is a DAO that makes liquid staking protocols – a simple and secure way to earn staking rewards on your digital assets without losing liquidity. What this means is that you can both stake your capital and participate in DeFi, thereby increasing your yield. We do this by issuing you stASSETS in exchange We launched on Ethereum in Dec 2020 and have since has become one of the biggest, occasionally the biggest, DeFi protocol by TVL. We are also present on Terra, Solana, Polygon, Kusama and Polkadot. Our guiding principle is that liquid staking is two-sided product: one is liquid staking token, that provides APR, liquidity and optionality (integrations) to the stakers, and the other is providing a validator set to the protocol. Protocols that do one of these things badly will lose. We maintain that selecting a validator set has to be an opinionated process (what’s a good validator set? there’s no single definition for “good” here), that has to source data from meatspace in some way. There’s no purely onchain way to gauge the geographical, political distribution of…

Excerpt (1195 of 1910 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Just wrote a post titled " IBC Will Not Make Cosmos a Hub; That’s Great News".

The core idea is that Cosmos Hub most likely will not be a hub due to the dynamic competition of the app-chain world. Therefore, we need to prepare for a future where Cosmos can only compete on innovations. This includes the integration of CosmWasm, whether it is in the Pho Upgrade or in a future one.

The full post is here: IBC Will Not Make Cosmos a Hub; That&#039;s Great News | Polkachu

Polkachu

Let’s assume this passed and gets included in the rho upgrade. What’s the estimated timeline for lido to deploy the contract and launch it fully? @vshvsh
I feel like if we can provide an estimated eta like 3 months than people will feel the gain more real.

Also anyone can estimate timeline on copying daodao?

Thanks Billy for the thoughtful initial writeup and everyone else for the discussion. I have a few thoughts on this. My general feeling right now is to vote No, but I will try to provide some analysis around what I think would be needed for a Yes. I could imagine a VM going on the Hub, but I would expect it at least to (1) have a dedicated team of trained experts in that VM and its integrations, focused specifically on its deployment on the Hub, (2) have them engage in or oversee a focused security review, (3) have them provide clear reasoning why it should be directly on the Hub vs on an interchain secured consumer chain, and (4) have them integrated into the governance gated deployment process. I don’t think we will have that by Q2 2022. We do want to have a team like that to support CosmWasm consumer chains anyways, so we are working on building it up. So I guess it’s a question of timing. That said, my general preference is for the Hub to lean towards minimalism. A big part of why we’re building Interchain Security is to enable the Hub to extend its functionality in a principled way, using the age-old principle of process isolation to scale computation. Ideally, I think…

Excerpt (1196 of 6782 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Great write up thanks! Sounds like you’re advocating for a permissionless cosmwasm on the Hub? Do you think that’s necessary if we deploy a permissionless cosmwasm as a consumer chain ? The plan is to leverage interchain security to bring smart contracting to the Hub.

There are significant risks to delaying liquid staking arriving on the Hub.

The biggest risk is that DeFi yields must compete with ATOM staking yield. It make ATOM a bad asset to use in DeFi in the medium term. This dynamic creates a risk that ATOM will be made obsolete in DeFi.

It opens up a significant competitive risk for ATOM and I don’t think ATOM can make up for that risk by playing the long game.

That’s fair, but does this just means that if liquid staking launches before cosmwasm/ or interchain security then we just have to bear the risk of the initial staking derivatives being built on chains not secured by ATOM ?

And the present case is unfortunately further complicated by Jae (who has not played any kind of meaningful role in Cosmos development for years) effectively bribing people with the Gnoland airdrop to vote a particular way, @ebuchman No peace, Ethan? That’s unfortunate. You call it a bribe, I call it leaving. We all have a right to exit and self-associate, and a sentiment proposal that offers the option is a great place for it. A sentiment proposal, supported by the very organization you’re foundation council member of. (The one that I founded; the one you repeatedly requested me to leave due to “conflicts of interest”, while you, you’re the one still steeped in conflicts of interests!). The same sentiment proposal where the NO with VETO option was imbued with connotations it should not have; that if you vote NO with VETO you plan to leave Cosmos and exit. I merely leaned into the bullshit and countered a pre-existing bias that you are responsible for. You of all people should be celebrating the freedom of expression and self association demonstrated by this proposal and the airdrop, but you chose to label it as unfortunate bribing instead, and then you lied about what…

Excerpt (1198 of 2737 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This is cringe. Can we just debate the merits of the proposal and find a compromise instead of slinging dirt at each other?

Hey Ethan, we are relatively new to the Cosmos ecosystem (<1 year). Based on our observation in the past year, it seems that a “hub” cannot retain a competitive advantage in a feature without the risk of being forked into an independent chain.

We love the concept of Interchain Security and all the work that your team has been doing. That said, we believe that high-value chains would prefer to own their security (e.g., running a validator set), and low-value chains will be indifferent in outsourcing the security to Cosmos Hub or a competitor (say, Saga).

We are unclear how it would play out one way or another. Our “Yes” vote on Prop 69 calls for the preparation of a possible future that Cosmos is not a “hub”.

We do not have a clear take on whether CosmWasm needs to be permissioned or permissionless. Either way seems fine, and permissioned might be more prudent to start with for Cosmos.

How about we talk about how best to coordinate exit by defining the procedure in a constitution? It would involve a sentiment proposal with two opposing sides.

Also, it makes no sense that a new OS is needed for the hub to enable liquid staking. Replicated security allows for functionality to exist on other chains, still validated by ATOM. There’s no lack of options on how to do it without WASM on the hub, and implementing this should be the highest priority of the ICF.

I don’t get this exit rhetoric. Exit the hub? Like ok, dump your Atom and forge your path, man. If that path is something that resonates with people, i’m sure you’ll have some followers. I think I speak for many Cosmonauts when I say that it would be great for many of you OG’s to find some common ground and leave the past where it is.

To this point, the hub really hasn’t felt very “hubby” to me outside of being a fiat gateway to Cosmos, and the criticism of Atom’s tokenomics/utility/value accrual in the ecosystem have rang more true as time goes on. Zaki brings up a good point about Atom losing ground in the interchain as time goes on and it inflates to infinity. Josh Lee said it best: “the biggest threat to the hub is not instability, it’s irrelevance.”

At this point, the proposal is DOA. So what’s next? In theory, CW on the hub could be excellent if it’s done the right way, so how do we get there in a way that alleviates concerns if this is shelved and proposed later?

Everyone voting YES on 69 is ignoring one simple point.

You can get what you want without putting CosmWASM, basically an operating system, on the hub.

So your point is just a red herring that pro CosmWASMers are pushing, to manipulate the public into making the hub irrelevant through bloat and failure.

Forks will ensure transparency and accountability succeed in keeping our systems simple and secure. Long live Cosmos and gno.land, the gnomes of the greater resistance!

Bribing is what @zmanian offered an employee of AIB after he left; he asked for a “larger bribe” (his words) in return for silence in the public toward me. That’s extortion and bribery, & I should have acted on it back then, but I stayed silent then. I can’t stay silent anymore.

So @zmanian, extortionist, protected an employee who confessed to me that she stole Bitcoins from her ex for revenge. And knowing this, blamed me for failures because I didn’t promote this person to Google Apps owner, despite max admin privileges.

When she left the company she accused me vaguely of “harassment”; a public crucifixion in the age of wokeness. For what, for saying that we ought to be doing the work of God and making excellent software! These are social engineers manipulating the public against their enemies.

The entire @cosmos ecosystem has a right to know what happened, in light of continued FUD. I would not be able to sleep at night knowing that the community is being led to doom by clowns. Long live Cosmos and the gnomes of the greater resistance!

From purely financial perspective, Ethereum got to $400 billion valuation with a crappy virtual machine and many hacks. Solana got to nearly $100 billion in FDV despite multiple chain failures. While I understand the desire to split off smart contracts to another chain/s for very understandable “reputational” reasons, industry comparisons show that bad reputation doesn’t necessarily mean bad valuation (see Ethereum, Solana). Functionality clearly trumps bad reputation when it comes to value accrual. It is in the financial interest of ATOM holders for there to be smart contract capability on the hub. Maybe there could be a way to limit which smart contract get deployed and leave that to governance. New smart contracts that get deployed have to be evaluated both for their risk and reward before get deployed on the hub. Maybe Cosmos differentiates itself from Ethereum in that it has very strict requirements before it allows a smart contract to be deployed on the Hub. This allows the Hub to have the capability for needed features without necessarily sacrificing reputation. CosmWasm needs to be added for ATOM to be relevant and the hub to accrue value which is very important. It is…

Excerpt (1197 of 1488 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’ve read a bit about cosmswam. I feel there are some benefits but also quite a few drawbacks to including it in cosmoshub. I feel it’ll just be more of the burden to creators and developers of the chain. They will not only have to work on there own program but cosmswam too. Some things they want to do just don’t fit what this is chain is trying to do in the future and for that my vote will be “no”. I can go into more detail if need be. I also don’t know if this is necessary but this is my address to my wallet.
cosmos1cgjwk9ht26fxu6fu25m6m3fetkwyasm56059dd

You’re not addressing the risk that is present. The Hub, as an IBC token zone, has very different security characteristics than the more self-contained Ethereum. Yikes.

Every chain in Cosmos can be an IBC token zone. By that logic no IBC token zone should have smart contracts… or… the smart contract chains shouldn’t be IBC chains. Essentially you are saying there is a tradeoff between interoperability and programmability. Can you elaborate on what the risks are?

Thank you all for the thoughtful discussion. Amidst all the drama and confusion around this proposal it has become apparent to me that the Hub needs an equivalent to the Swiss direct democracy handbook if it is to flourish.

The challenge here is to provide clear and succinct answers to every question that a reasonable Cosmonaut might have regarding a proposal, regardless of their level of education or knowledge.

Here is my attempt at an MVP of a Swiss booklet for prop 69 . My hope is that we move towards a Cosmos in which we publish such a booklet for every upgrade proposal well in advance of the vote (as well as perhaps a shortened version for param change proposals).

Thanks to @hxrts for the extensive discussions and for encouraging me to write this up. All feedback welcome and appreciated

Your attempt is excellent sacha, thank you so much!..

I also completely agree with your idea of having a similar handbook for every upgrade proposal in advance of the voting period.

I spent some time to read this thread. I am web developer myself. It is still hard to fully understand the situation here.

especially the CosmWASM risk over benefit, still hard to make a decision for me. Well, I guess I will vote no for now.

At least, I tried my best to understand and made my own decision .

Thanks for the hard work though. I am developer myself. I hope my vote does not hurt any feeling.

Why the guys don’t play together to better world’s decentralization? What is a Nash equilibrium in game theory? The guy’s have a beautiful mind’s and are so smart! Nash Theory can save and move forward the Cosmo Ecosystem.

Your post was great polkachu thanks for everything you’re doing in cosmos

I am glad that you liked it but must respectfully request that you no longer speak of Gaia as fat or thin.

thank you.

Because when Cosmwasm is on the hub it can draw data it needed directly from the hub. If we placed it off hub and expected it to do the same thing, right now it can’t, we will have to build IBC queries, or mirror hub data. Both of these options will slow down the hub then serve up old data to the Cosmwasm app.

I don’t think this forum is the time and place to air your personal grievances.

There is no better place than in public, though I question the wisdom of going so far into the past.

Look basically the alternative I mean it really sucks man, I just don’t with it it just ate several days of mine and people could say well you know that’s your fault you let it consume several days no that’s not my fault, I work in Cosmos professionally .

So, the only thing that I question is @jaekwon digging so far into the past about these grievances. But please let me just emphasize, there is stuff I disagree with him on, there is stuff that I agree with him on, and in both cases Even if he or someone else is spouting pure bullshit, I’d rather that everyone know that there’s a level playing field for voicing your opinion, and that that cuts both ways.

Speaking entirely in private contexts, can embolden people to act in ways that they otherwise would not.

Since the Cosmos is really quite engineering driven I suppose that one of the things that I would challenge Jae or anyone on is ensuring that there is always a fact-driven discourse. The closer and more rigorously we steer toward the use of observable fact in our work the more effective we will be.