Introduction:
First and foremost, we want to clarify that we don’t intend to represent the entire community but rather share our perspective on the matter. Correct us if we’re mistaken, but is this topic proposing the construction of a SDK Consumer chain for the Hub consisting of a Cosmwasm module and a custom-tailored Governance module that uses ATOMs as a voting token ?
Analysis:
Assuming the answer is yes, it becomes evident that this proposal poses direct competition to Neutron’s chain, which already holds a similar market share. The proposed changes include using ATOM or LS versions of ATOM as a gas token to compensate validators, essentially turning it into a utility token. This strategic move is intriguing as it aims to add more value to the asset and generate new types of demands within the existing supply. Still, it may pose a few underlying problems:
-
Shared Security Concerns: However, there’s a significant drawback to this approach. It contradicts a crucial aspect of ATOM today – the shared security aspect. Directly competing with an existing consumer chain, such as Neutron, poses serious threats. This concern extends beyond Neutron, as one could argue that the Hub might do the same with Stride or any other future ICS chain. The community should recall past discussions about the Hub potentially acquiring the entire STRD supply and integrating the founding team into the Hub’s core – discussions that, since then, have lacked conclusive outcomes.
-
Open-Source Dynamics: This dilemma underscores the open-source nature of our public blockchain infrastructure. In an open environment, anyone can replicate a good product. Govmos holds a particular interest in the Hub’s model as it appears distinct from major competitors striving to maximize value for their native token. The Hub, in contrast, has adopted an initial cooperative stance, advocating for the app-chain thesis to segregate different services into distinct sovereign chains. Entities then choose whether or not to partner with the Hub in exchange for its primary service: security.
Comparative Economic Models:
In comparison to other economic models, the Hub’s cooperative model is evident. It fosters an ecosystem where different services operate in separate sovereign chains, deciding independently to collaborate with the Hub for security. This vision is detailed in the Cosmos Ecosystem Report under the Network Architecture section found here: Cosmos Ecosystem : A permissionless B2B2C network. The report likens Cosmos to an ancient city, with ICSv1 as the core primitive securing public infrastructure while aligning governance with the Castle (the Hub). It introduces Mesh security as the second primitive, securing the city as a whole.
The proposed SDK Consumer chain, if implemented, could be seen as replacing core public services with their sovereignty under the direct governance of the Castle. This top-down approach seems reminiscent of efforts in other ecosystems and may not align with Cosmos’ ethos. There is a risk that the Hub might struggle to survive if it attempts to impose such verticals on the broader Cosmos city.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, we hope this comprehensive post was worth your time. Thank you for considering our perspective.
Govmos (the governance arm of the PRO Delegator’s validator)
