New Features: Transparency and Justification

Hello fellow Cosmonauts. I want to touch on the topic of Risk evaluation and due diligence when suggesting new features that are altering the core of Cosmos to the point the suggested ones do. New features = New revenue streams. This is correct, yet not absolute. New revenue streams can come from product robustness, longevity and security as well. In software development, whenever a product reaches a supposed stalemate in development, the new features are used to drive new capital in and push development. However this does not come without a cost. Enter, Software Development Entropy Acceleration. The new features albeit driving new capital, are consuming resources, the development cost goes up, and the risk ratio rises. New features albeit alluring and capital inducing at first, in the long run inevitably drive the product to development entropy in a more accelerated manner. Disclaimer: I am not advocating for software stagnation and a supposed equilibrium. This is an impossibility in Software Engineering. The point i am trying to make here, is to prevent high levels of entropy by introducing rushed new features. No new features? NGMI! I do not agree at all with…

Excerpt (1197 of 5576 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you for your well detailed feedback. I think that as community member you have all the rights to feel worried for the future of the Hub and ask for more deep analysis. A risk assessment report for any big change in the tokenomics is something that I also suggested with a group of friends in the Charter thread: [DISCUSSION] Working draft of Cosmos Hub Charter Proposal Ideas Introduction Hello everyone, I am ala.tusz.am, although some of you may know me as abra tusz. I make this post as a representative of a group of friends and community members that have been seeking grassroots changes within the ecosystem for the past couple of years. We ( @ticojohnny , @RobbStack , @JD-Lorax , @CosmonautPorge, @valeh_cosmos) are composed of passionate Cosmonauts working both independently and with different Cosmos based organizations. Our members hail from around the world. We re… The recent events showed that the community deeply care about the Hub and it is definitely important to build a stronger connection and transparency between builders, validators and community members/ Stakeholders. A lesson to learn is that the community should be part of the…

Excerpt (1193 of 3483 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Blockquote I don’t agree completely in the comparison with traditional finance, because a decentralized network is obviously not comparable to a traditional fintech. We have yet to discover the best practice for communication in a decentralized network. DAO or Council seems the tools in the Crypto space that could provide the report that you are asking. So this is something to be considered for example with a spend proposal, to fund for example a team that can provide specific reports, if we aim to follow to have a more decentralized Hub.

There is little to almost no difference in the majority of things as cryptofi is today. Only the illusion of the difference really.

Anyhow, A Dao is an idea I can get behind more. Self generated transparent reports are very much needed, Yearn if im not mistaken has implemented something like this.

However, transparency reports are one part of the topic here. The other being, how can we justify innovative leaps with proper risk assessment? Again i would like to see if this could be possible via DAO instead of an elected council.

Thanks for this post @Binochet , I fully agree with you that: Binochet: Any change proposed should come with a transparent publicly available Risk Assesment Report and also that we need better processes for risk assessment with a minimization of stagnation. I think the problems at hand are not only about transparency and reporting, but also our ability to comprehend and act on those reports effectively. One possible idea (and note it is only a seed of an idea) is the development of a more coherent process for assessing risks and analyzing information as a community. This has two components in which we have a decentralized knowledge base where we crowdsource as many possible opinions about an idea as possible. While in and of itself that would lead to incoherent outcomes, an epistemic-status proposal (text-proposal) can then be used to signal the epistemic-status of an idea, with super-majority approval indicating that it’s ready for the next steps (note: NO execution-strategy should be tied to the outcomes of an epistemic status proposal, its only purpose is to judge the collective confidence in an idea). Anything short of super-majority approval might…

Excerpt (1197 of 1662 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

The interesting part in crypto is that on some points we are trying to reinvent the wheel. I am totally with you on the change of community tax not needing an extensive research as parameter change, but the plans what we are going to do with the funds needs one.
New code needs one.

I think that is the essence of @Binochet. Not necessarily to copy TradFi, but we can learn what already works there and copy it. And fix what doesn’t work.