My long form position

Open letter to the cosmos community Hi this is Jacob you may know me from my Twitter account Twitter.com/gadikian and others of you may know me from my GitHub account, faddat. Some of you might not know me at all and that’s fine too I hope you’re doing well. All right so I really want to lay a few points hopefully as clear as possible concerning the recent discussion about cosmwasm on the hub and my experience with cosmwasm and I’m going to try to keep it absolutely as plain and boring and technical as possible. I basically have the role that I currently have in Cosmos because of various mentors that I’ve had, and these people include Jae Kwon, Jack Zampolin, dev, Alessio, and to be real, countless others. I have been known to have great appreciation for Zaki’s one-liners. Not one liners as in bash script, but his statements that compile huge amounts of knowledge into a single sentence. It’s impressive. It was Jae who initially pulled me in in 2016, and it was Jack who taught me IBC. I want to have a Frank an open conversation about CW on The hub because I’m not exactly opposed to it in the same way that my teacher Jae is, but he makes some valid points and these get lost…

Excerpt (1198 of 15618 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

So if we fork the cosmos hub, how about Atom holder? How they can benefit from the fork? How we distribute new token of forked chain, sir? Thank you!

You are voting NO on the 69 proposal because you want to get GNO tokens. When 69 passes, you will probably vote YES on the exact same proposal when there is no economic loss attached to the decision. Fork of hub is an absolute NO for me. I understand the desire to split of every new functionality into a new process/thread/token (this is how software engineers think) but from investment perspective it really dilutes the offering. People don’t have infinite amounts of money and they can’t follow 20 fkn tokens that have marginal functionality. Each token is a new financial asset with all the bookkeeping work attached to it. It is not a good idea to have endless amounts of financial assets. Investors can’t follow endless amount of things. People have limit to attention span. The word “Hub” means there is something of value there that everybody uses. All I see here is endless proposals to dilute the value of the Hub and split off other tokens. This financial strategy doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. You should bundle in Cosmos Hub whatever you can bundle and only split off stuff if absolutely necessary. I think the main issue is permissionless CW which is what is perceived as…

Excerpt (1195 of 1521 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I knew that you’d happen.

Hi, @vixcontango

Where’s your code?

Right, that’s what I thought. Furthermore, if you take issue with how software engineers think, then I do suggest that you please sell all of your cryptocurrency, and your mobile phone, and your car. Go back to a cave somewhere and enjoy.

100% of cosmos was built by software engineers, as was the internet, and just about everything that you use on a daily basis.

If you do not understand this reality, that is not my fault. I guess you should learn to code.

my reply

This does not dilute the offering of anything. What it does is create a second cosmos hub, and holders of atom get exactly precisely 1:1 the atoms that they previously held. I cannot help and will not abide your ignorance, it’s not welcome.

It should be a 1:1 fork, that includes centralized exchanges.

Literally if you have ATOM, you should get these tokens. I do need to name the denom, and rapidly, because I am making the genesis currently.

int i = 0;
while (i < 0) {
Console.Print(“Jacob thinks a guy who knows how software engineers think doesn’t know how to code”);
i++;
}
// this code won’t execute
//--------------------------
Console.Print(“The following statement is an oxymoron:”);
Console.Print(“This does not dilute the offering of anything. What it does is create a second cosmos hub”)
Console.Print(“LOLOLOL”)

not bad sir.

Nonetheless, you’re totally missing the point.

And I repeat my statement that if uncomfortable with “the way software engineers think” that you should make with a move to a cave, rapido.

All I am trying to say is that investors having to invest in 3 or 4 tokens in the Cosmos ecosystem to get exposure to the same functionality you get with Ethereum is probably not the best way to add value. For example, if you have 100K, in Ethereum system you buy 100K of ETH. In Cosmos, you need to split into 50K ATOM and 50K JUNO to get exposure to the same interop and permissionless smart contract functionality that ETH gives you. You do dilute the value of the ATOM token when you split off new functionalities into a separate token. As a software dev myself, I don’t think people like you that contribute to open source projects like Cosmos Hub should be doing it for free. I want you to make a lot of money. A lot more money than in traditional industry. So value accrual for the tokens is not a incidental issue or an unimportant issue. It is important. Obviously, it doesn’t have to be the only issue (like it is in the Ethereum system with its maxis), but I just don’t want Cosmos to go to an extreme place in the other direction where every new important functionality/module is split off into another chain/token. I don’t think it is good for the ecosystem if it becomes too difficult…

Excerpt (1198 of 1575 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

yeah you also said that my vote was profit motivated. At Notional, we’ve a very strict policy to only vote for the economic interests of the specific chain in question. We think that Gaia will be best served without CW, and do best without CW. We also see the value of a CW hub that attempts to preserve Gaia’s exchange listings. We think that this is good for ATOM holders, so we’re proposing it. Since it is entirely external to the hub, no gov prop is needed. Since ICF was vehemently in support of cw on the hub, Notional and many of our partners are positively shocked by the lack of response from ICF. We think that Gaia’s development on a closed discord server is hilariously dumb. Gaia’s validators have no meaningful access to conversations about Gaia’s development. Per usual with ICF, when I pointed out that this was the case, I was told by ICF that actions would be taken to correct the situation. Far as I know, no such actions have been taken. I figured people would do that, and that led me to do and publish a metric ton of research, and the conclusion of the research I did is that the future of cosmos is very likely multi-chain applications, weather those be cw or gno or…

Excerpt (1199 of 4127 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗