AIB: Reinforcing Our Commitment to Cosmos Hub

1920×1080 72.9 KB The Cosmos Hub community has found itself facing some difficult choices lately. While AIB voted and recommended NWV on prop82 , we recognize that some of the ideas in the ATOM 2.0 whitepaper deserve to be explored. As core founders of our ecosystem, we also know that Cosmonauts are looking to AIB to provide direction for the Hub. The best path forward is through collaboration and valuable contribution, and we’re committed to supporting the ATOM community in its effort to shape the future of the Cosmos Hub in the following ways. Fostering Innovation while Maintaining Security As the largest interoperable blockchain ecosystem, 51 sovereign Cosmos chains already form the IBC economy, exchanging value while remaining independent. With the upcoming release of Interchain Security (ICS) in early 2023, this number will rapidly rise as new consumer chains harness the security of Cosmos Hub, speeding up their time to market while providing additional revenue for ATOM holders and Cosmos Hub validators. In the long run, the primary source of revenue for stakers and validators or miners in blockchains is transaction fees. The Cosmos Hub is in a uniquely…

Excerpt (1188 of 10894 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

(post deleted by author)

I’m in general agreement with a lot of these goals. Decentralized funding, caution around LS, reviewing ICS, all sound great.

A few points:

DAO framework: Coming from AiB, I suspect the desired DAO framework will be Gnolang. This is fine, but I would probably reach for something that has been in production for a few years already, like DAODAO on CosmWasm. Not a big deal though, I think that different subDAOs can use different languages and frameworks. I’ll probably be experimenting with a DAODAO subDAO design in 2023 though.

ICS review: We welcome a review of ICS: GitHub - cosmos/interchain-security. Let me know if you want a technical walkthrough.

I know most of us who worked on ATOM 2.0 feel very exhausted and discouraged after prop 82. It’s shaken my confidence as to whether the Hub community is capable of constructive dialogue, or whether we’ve created a system where thoughtful people with good intentions are met with threats of violence. So while I appreciate AIB coming to the table, I’d recommend starting even smaller than what’s proposed here to begin rebuilding trust. My suggestions: • Hold off on any conversation about forks of Tendermint or the SDK as they pertain to the Hub. If AIB wants to develop forks that’s their prerogative, but better to separate that discussion from any immediate next steps for the Hub as it will only serve to complicate matters at this stage. • I can no longer speak to ICF spending on work related to the Hub, however given market conditions my expectation is very little will receive funding apart from the continuation of Interchain Security software development. Maintenance of the core software stack will constitute the majority of ICF’s 2023 budget. • Let’s avoid any gov discussion whatsoever on Telegram/Discord for the next few months. Keep discourse to the forum and more tightly…

Excerpt (1196 of 3663 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Is there a good analysis of mentioned LS risks?

• How self sabotage would work?
• Centralization… How? I thought LS is an opponent for more egalitarian stake distribution, especially when DAOs are involved. Of course when implementing badly it can end up badly - but this is criticism for everything (even for PoS).

Zaki wrote up a doc including a few risks. I’ve also been speaking to Lido, Stride, and Quicksilver about flashloan gov attack mitigations. Additionally I have 2 open issues on the LSM module that would help with safety.