Hi, one of the big risks of being a frequent commentator in politics in cosmos is making assumptions and I made one yesterday so I just want to make something clear: slashes are not ideal.
I would like to give tremendous credit to Gregory of Regen. He took some concepts I laid out yesterday that could easily be interpreted as promoting slashing and turned it into something far better.
I’d like to request that @jaekwon and @ebuchman Make a commitment to keeping the trunk of Gaia slash free, both in word and in deed. With that said, if either side feels that they can create a more productive chain without the other side, then they are welcome to fork the other side off. In this way, we ensure that token holders remain whole and that the chain does not feel too risky.
So, I need to just restate:
> 
That is to say, once again, that we can have several hubs, Greg suggested three. But we should not have slashing on the hub. First of all, the only slashe s that are approved by the protocol are for downtime and equivocation. That shouldn’t change.
my view (if you care)
- 2.0 is the best proposal I’ve seen for the hub
- There are solid reasons for hub minimalism and 2.0 isn’t that
- Minimalists could desire their own hub and in that case that should be a new Genesis, especially because of the gravity tokens that are now scattered across the cosmos.
- Fans of a large Gaia could desire to experiment with features without the minimalists, and in that case that should be a new Genesis, especially because of the gravity tokens that are now scattered across the cosmos.
- No slashing should occur on Gaia herself.