Thank you for addressing the mains pinpoints of our post one by one. There’s still one critical factor that we think could be elucidated further for anyone reading us.
1. Being “Unforkable”
Ultimately, this concept ties back to the “forkable theory,” rooted in the notion that any open-source blockchain can be replicated instantly—either as an identical version or an improved separate version. The sustained value of an open-source project over time hinges on its ability to be “unforkable.” In other words, while anyone could duplicate the software, achieving meaningful competition would remain incredibly challenging.
2. Symbiosis
Each replicated security consumer chain plays a vital role in the global AEZ (liquid staking and EL for now). In exchange for a share of their revenue, the Hub provides them with its entire professional validator set and its community of users, all while allowing consumers to retain complete sovereignty. Thanks to Informal’s efforts, we will even offer atomic composability between replicated security partners in the not-so-distant future. If Neutron were to ever leave ICS, it could be promptly replaced by a duplicate chain like the EL proposed in this conversation. This symbiotic relationship is mutually beneficial, far surpassing the potential gains of attempting solo ventures.
3. Cooperation
Wouldn’t the Hub benefit more by having its own EL? This would mean retaining 100% of the EL revenue instead of a share from Neutron. However, introducing direct competition to an existing consumer chain could prove extremely detrimental. It would convey the message to other consumer chains that they, too, could be at risk. Such a move not only jeopardizes the Hub’s neutral credibility but also undermines its very essence as an “unforkable” top security provider. Recognizing this is crucial to understanding the symbiotic and cooperative nature that the hub proposes.
4. Maintaining Balance
While this may be speculative, we could invite Neutron’s @Spaydh to share his opinion directly and explain why Neutron has chosen replicated security. From our perspective (acknowledging the potential for error), any consumer chain in replicated security appears to be a long-term strategy. It represents a bilateral agreement aimed at maintaining a symbiotic balance between the hub’s sustainability and its “unforkable” advantage, alongside sovereign and highly composable revenue-generating consumer chains. It seems that each party attempting to eliminate the other would end up less efficient at both aspects compared to accepting reliance on the other, even without direct control.
