Replicated security so far has been great for consumer chains benefiting from the security of the Cosmos Hub. After two consumer chains were approved and revenues were not covering the infra costs of validators, other potential consumer chains stopped/delayed their plans or merged with existing consumer chains.
A new consumer chain would always prefer replicated security or top-n of 100% vs any lower security provided. In the feature A, many consumer chains could launch but attracting negligable security from the Cosmos hub. Even with the voting option, while some spam could be avoided, likely most of these consumer chains would attract negligable security and the serious project would opt for Replicated security to get the same security as Neutron or Stride.
For the Top-n is confusing, I guess for this a governance proposal is required? And if the proposal is approved then the top-n in that case needs to run that consumer chain?
The main issue since the launch of replicated security was the low revenues from consumer chains and the additional costs for validators. Neutron is solving this for themselves using some NTRN unclaimed from the airdrop as we suggested months ago and asked the community via a twitter poll. Will the top-n idea or the permisionless opt-in consumer chains idea solve the cost/revenues issue? Let’s analyse.
Permisionless opt-in consumer chains: since validators can choose or not to join for them it is better, but for consumer chains it is an issue if they can only attract negligable security and hence may not find this interesting
Top-n: for validators in the top-n is the same issue as replicated security but this is basically like the soft opt-out since the lower voting power validators can choose not to run that consumer chain. How is this different from a lower-n soft opt-out feature?