The peril of compromise

trigger warning slashes and forks ahead I don’t think that the best scenario is slashes and forks. I think that the best scenario is moving onward with Atom 2.0 with the paper slightly modified to better describe protocol owned liquidity/inflation, as well as the chain of custody of funds in the Treasury. With that said, I would like you to please view this document as a risk mitigation mechanism. Specifically, I see grave peril in doing atom 2.0 piece by piece. It is a set of components that depend on one another, and it is absolutely not a minimal hub. Trying to blend 2.0 with the ideas of a minimal hub will likely lead to failure. If we must get slashy, then that should be done on different chains and we end up with three hubs. Thanks to Greg from Regen for this idea, which preserves the integrity of the cosmos Hub. I have not modified my original article, although my point of view has changed somewhat, getting all vengeance like on the Hub itself serves nobody. That said, neither AIB nor ICF should really be looked at as having kept up-to-date with their obligations. The random string is still at large. original article I just wanted to mention that the biggest…

Excerpt (1197 of 5365 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This is an interesting analysis, thanks for putting it together Jacob!

Not sure AiB or Jae have the capacity (or desire) to even help maintain Hub 1.0. Do they? If they do, a “two horses to bet on makes sense”. But seems more realistic that only 2.0 will take off and be maintained.

AIB does not deserve 10% of atoms on the 2.0 hub.

We can argue that this is true, and maybe it is. But this would still be a vengeful strike. AiB had a foundational role in the Cosmos ecosystem. They are like the patron, or rich uncle, or rich grandpa that had a good idea say 100 years ago. Shouldn’t AiB inherit that? Some people believe inheritance should be canceled. The approach of slashing AiB is similar to that. Not convinced it’s productive.

Oh allow me to explain that I don’t think it’s productive either it’s just that the mutual slashes scenario avoids the 1.5 scenario . I do think that they have the resources necessary to maintain the hub, although if history is any judge, they likely wouldn’t. But the reality is that the 1.0 hub is basically the simplest possible Cosmos chain, and it’s likely that even I myself could maintain it personally. I’m not loving the slashes. But if we’re going to do this, and @jaekwon Does seem quite enamored with the concept, then we should do it in the manner that is most productive to the community. The most productive possible slash scenario eliminates future contention, does not harm community members, and most importantly avoids a tragic 1.5 compromise that would serve no one well. During the discussion of slashes yesterday, I myself said that I believe that both ICF and AIB have failed in various ways and yet it is likely best to simply respect their historical contributions. Jae doesn’t agree. As you are aware, at times, I have felt that the ICF should be slashed. Many people felt that I wasn’t being fair or balanced, and that AIB had also failed in major ways. Those…

Excerpt (1196 of 2283 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I also want to mention, in response to some feedback from Twitter, that I do have a favorite scenario, and that is the passage of a slightly modified atom 2.0.

However, atom 2.0 has motivated @jaekwon to get slashy and The only utility of this is to prevent an engineering compromise that would likely end in disaster.

So, please understand that this is simply a risk mitigation.

I remain in support of atom 2.0, and I don’t think that the slashing is a very good idea at all. With that said, if there’s going to be slashing, then that slashing should most likely be mutual.

https://twitter.com/ssaintleger/status/1580185103627866112?t=khXQB4KZ1LTzS4Ds2xn8og&s=19

Sacha raises a really great point, The one true hub should not engage in this slash.

It bears repeating

I believe that 2.0 is probably the ideal.

I believe that 1.0 would continue to amble along as it does now.

I believe that if 1.0 is the left side of the letter U and 2.0 is the right side, what we really need to do is avoid an engineering compromise that puts us at the bottom of the U because I do not believe that 1.0 and 2.0 can be blended successfully. That’s the only place where I see a failure as likely.

A couple of quick thoughts and a disclaimer. This turned into a bit of a ramble exploring different options and likely outcomes. It is not a pithy proposal, but me digesting Jacobs suggestion of forking and my interpretation of the opportunities and threats at this moment in time as we all contemplate the Atom 2.0 vision and the historical relationships that make coalescing into a shared vision together challenging. This response is broken into three parts: • A proposal about definitions • A proposal about the “fork on the road” • An exploration of different scenarios • A proposal about the process and culture of governance we should embrace at this moment as the Cosmos Hub Community. 1: Definitions: We should not be using the term slashing for any of this discussion. It is technically inaccurate imho. Slashing is a predefined and deterministic removal of tokens from a wallet associated with actions that can undermine the health of a PoS network. It should not be used to describe any social processes resulting in token holdings being changed via token voting. (In this I may be going against @jaekwon ’s statements, I am not sure, but I…

Excerpt (1196 of 13012 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thanks @jacobgadikian for starting this post on the forum. Thanks @Gregory for your elaborate post which clearly shows you took your time to put down your thoughts in a very constructive way. In principle we have 2 basic scenario’s: • keep the Hub as one • fork My absolute preference has the first scenario, where the Hub operates as one. I think on the long run having all the combined power of the skilled devs will allow the Cosmoverse to thrive and become bigger and better than it already is. We have already achieved quite a lot and there is still a lot to come. It surely requires strong leaders to take a step back sometimes and see the big picture and be able to come to a workable compromise where everyone agrees that it is the best route forward. However, this is currently not the case. So something has to change to be able to live the ideal scenario. If this proves impossible, then we have to go for the second best thing. Which is something which is done in the “real” economy all the time, where people leave a company and start their own. We can call it “forking out” or a divorce or a management buyout or just creating a new start-up. In all cases we have to…

Excerpt (1195 of 2300 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi, I just want to make clear, slashes aren’t ideal and in my opinion the largest possible risk to the hub is a mix-and-match of minimalist ideas and 2.0. That’s why I also disagree with the notion that 2.0 should be passed in several proposals, that could leave the hub in a compromised state.

Interestingly, I find the prospect of a fork compelling. Reminds me a lot of the DAO hack on Ethereum, and well - we have Ethereum Classic and Ethereum 2.0. When it happened a “stock split” of sorts occurred. Ethereum Classic chugged right along producing blocks with the effects of “code is law” and Ethereum returned the hacked funds back to investors and recently made it’s transition to PoS, which gave Ethereum owners another “stock split” with EthPoW. Ethereum: • Ethereum Classic • Ethereum 2.0 • Ethereum PoW Basically there are parallels to events we have seen in the blockchain industry, and I think it should be noted to anyone contemplating these proposals that this equates to your current holdings being amplified into these different ideological directions the Cosmos ecosystem could go in. We can not predict the success or failure of one or the other, but if there are engineers aligned to the development of the protocols in these different ideological directions - it’s not much different than launching a new zone. The bonus for stakers is - your current holdings would be represented in each developmental effort. What I mean when I say that we cannot predict…

Excerpt (1197 of 3273 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This conversation has been very fascinating, many thanks to all who have contributed to it. jacobgadikian: If we attempt to mix 2.0 with the minimal 1.0 and end up with 1.5, I think that we can kiss the hub goodbye. If this discussion is to continue beyond a theoretical discussion, it makes sense to begin gathering the following information: • who would be contributing to which fork? • who would be validating on which fork? • how will each fork be governed? Gregory: Unless the great fork-off is orchestrated and amicable, we are likely to see the short term fragmentation of the ecosystem and of liquidity, doing great damage to the viability of cosmos as a place to build. Additionally, there is clear ownership over the direction of ATOM 2.0, something that ATOM 1.0 currently struggles with (as represented by the conversations that have been occurring on the forum). As such, it may be useful for us to lay out a clear path to execute on all of the discussions that have already occurred since the release of the 2.0 whitepaper. Part of the purpose of signaling proposals, is in fact to signal sentiment, with the percentage of yes / no / no…

Excerpt (1197 of 1711 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Would be quite interested in knowing this too.

ala.tusz.am:

If this discussion is to continue beyond a theoretical discussion, it makes sense to begin gathering the following information:

• who would be contributing to which fork?
• who would be validating on which fork?
• how will each fork be governed?

My interest is mainly rooted in knowing that in a regulatory blockchain enforcement era, which I sense is getting closer, there are going to be reporting responsibilities associated with the development of applications and/or chains. ISO-20022 will streamline those responsibilities.

ala.tusz.am:

how will each fork be governed?

As far as governance goes…I think this is the ideal target for an advanced civilization regardless if it’s blockchain, traditional or any flavor of a hybrid system. I like the practical approach he proposes to mature the technology too. I’ve contemplated if Fetch.ai is the ideal platform to build a governance solution as proposed in that TED talk, especially with the ability to scale transaction thruputs horizontally with ICS - Interchain Security.

Just gonna say this: nature always heals

seems kinda not

but who knows? we could also just prattle on about ethnicities and blasphemy forever.