We would like to start by saying that we agree with most of the claims presented in this post. We also think the dual quorum model may be a good solution until we alleviate the inherent complexities of “power mixing.” From our perspective, the endgame is to achieve that mixing model as envisioned by the Mesh Security design, but in the meantime, we agree to opt for a step-by-step approach.
To provide comprehensive feedback on the proposed rework for the system design, we would like to highlight one particular problem. With this new design, we can hardly imagine that demand will be there to add Bitcoin security on top of ATOMs. This would cause the security budget to be diluted even further. While we conducted research regarding Partial Set Security (PSS) economics, we discovered that security revenues are mostly overestimated by most participants. This is a far more stretched market than people think. Therefore, the number one risk we foresee is that this dual model would likely add even more strain on an already tight balance of security costs for consumer candidates.
Our assumption is that this additional security may actually encounter very little demand, aside from highly specific cases where collateral security would need to be enormously high (maybe there are cases we don’t envision). This is why we suggest putting effort into researching potential synergies that could be brought by Bitcoin security as an addition to what ATOM can already offer via PSS. Specifically, the fact that Babylon should be able to do more than protect from double-signing.
In our global crypto landscape, we particularly like the ideas put forward by Babylon to protect from long-range attacks as this is a specialty in which Bitcoin is particularly effective. On the other hand, ATOM is perfectly suited to provide the instant finality that BTC can’t. There is a fundamental symbiosis here that we should take advantage of.
This is just wild brainstorming here, but what about creating a dual model in which ATOM brings the fast finality, and as BTC reaches its own, we would be able to shorten epoch times. This could reduce storage costs for operators not running full archive nodes, whilst still maintaining protection from long-range attacks beyond that epoch finalization. This was one of the main benefits proposed by the Babylon’s solution to reduce unbonding times in Cosmos chains whilst maintaining safe protection against long-range attacks.
This could be a great v2 update for this dual model system. It would play around security layering through time instead of just adding layers on top of each other with no specific added utility. This system would split the security budget between the different security providers, reducing their individual revenue, but it would also reduce their operating costs, which makes it efficient.
To summarize, we definitely support the addition of Babylon’s WASM into the Hub, as it is proposed to operate with no fee, at least not in the initial launch phase (we assume this will be the same for consumers willing to use the smart contract as well). To consider sharing revenues, we strongly suggest implementing a dual benefit system. We proposed a wild theory of our own and we hope the community will be able to sort out the best solution. We are confident that there are intrinsic synergies to be explored between Bitcoin’s and ATOM’s properties. We proposed a time-layered approach to be added to the dual-quorum model future updates, but we are eager to hear everyone else’s vision on this.
Thank you for reading,
Govmos
