Why would it increase their security? They (Neutron and Stride) are already secured by the same ATOM stake that secures the Hub, give or take 5%.
I think the vision of ICS has always been permissionless, and the Hub has always been quite conservative about what we put in our blocks. I don’t really want any random chain team being able to spin up a chain that writes to our blocks, but I don’t mind them paying the Hub to secure their blocks.
Wouldn’t it be more secure because the immutable information is written in more than one place?
Do Ethereum L2s not record their transactions down onto Ethereum?
Do Bitcoin L2s not record theirs transactions down onto Bitcoin?
I guess? To me, it sounds like frustrating redundancy that bogs down the provider chain’s state, but I guess I’m much more used to ICS than I am to Eth or Bc L2s so of course I have biases here.
Hub state migrations already sometimes take an hour or more during upgrades and I really would not want to add more state that doesn’t directly serve the Hub itself.
I guess i saw it as provider chain staying dApp free but recording transactions in its blocks for the chains on top, like Polkadot.