Disband all HUB leadership and hand over the power to the skip team

I am very happy to hear that the skip team has joined internalchain and is ready to lead the rebirth of cosmos hub. I suggest that the community remove all leadership rights and give full power to skip operations. Because:

  1. Most community members are silent, and we cannot wake them up.
  2. A small number of active community members represent the community. This is not decentralized governance, but another kind of centralization.
  3. Part of the reason for the failure of the community in the past is also due to decentralized governance. No one’s opinion can completely convince the other part. Even if there is a supervision team, they bring both supervision and disaster. Even if there is a good team, it is difficult to succeed under such supervision, which eventually leads to the dissolution of the team and the loss of developers.

What the community lacks now is a person and team that can sweep away all obstacles and lead the growth of the community. I believe the skip team can do it.

This is just a discussion. I want to know what everyone thinks.

3 Likes

Thank you for sharing your opinion here. I believe people should engage more often in discussions on the forum. It’s a bit disappointing to see so few members of the community expressing their values and ideas in this space.

In my view, the recentralization of efforts around the Hub is a positive development. The fact that the Skip team is taking the lead should help improve the efficiency of development, not only for the Cosmos Hub but also for the Cosmos ecosystem as a whole.

However, this recentralization of efforts by the ICF, Skip, and the various Cosmos teams should not turn the Hub into a mere enterprise. It is crucial that the Hub retains its decentralization. Stakers and validators must remain the cornerstone of the Cosmos Hub’s progress. If governance appears to be failing today, it is mainly due to the governance module being overly simplistic. Currently, anyone with 500 ATOM can submit a proposal, which, institutionally speaking, resembles anarchy more than true democracy.

This is why I am working on a roadmap to introduce a constitution for the Cosmos Hub. The goal is to establish a structured framework, with well-defined institutions and roles, to coordinate efforts in one place while ensuring democratic legitimacy through elected representatives. For instance, this constitution could establish an assembly elected annually, tasked with coordinating all initiatives related to the Hub. This would enhance the Hub’s efficiency while maintaining a robust and credible democratic governance system.

1 Like

I agree that this is more like anarchy at the moment, and I look forward to the introduction of a constitution. And I hope that a lot of politically apathetic votes need to be considered when formulating any plan. Most people may just hold ATOM, but they do not participate in the governance of HUB.

2 Likes

Part of the reason why community members don’t care about the hub is that ATOM is not popular. If ATOM is a popular currency, I think more people will pay attention to it, and pay attention to the governance of the hub and participate in it. Therefore, the first thing we should do is to make ATOM the focus of public attention again.

3 Likes

ATOM is loosing for 2 simple reasons:

  1. it is too democratic.
  2. it has no hard-coded laws for value/money to flow back into it.

Ad 1: Pure democracies by and for everyone / all the masses of population don’t work. This has literally been known by rulers throughout the last 6000 years or so. You need selected democracies of experts and stakeholders. Divert from this you will disintegrate into death by thousands small democratic cuts.
Ad 2: Money never moves voluntarily. There have to be hard coded rules for value to flow back into $ATOM, and how $ATOM will protect it’s property rights. If not, $ATOM will continue on it’s path of losing until dissolved into nothingness.

Everything else is just the next meaningless word salad show. We can simply judge the coming months of the yet again new ATOM-leadership-change by how / if these 2 points are implemented. If implemented, then these new leaders are serious about truly establishing $ATOM. If not implemented, then this is just again the next version of trying to pump the token for a few short moments.

ATOM could be the path of least resistance. If it wins this way, he will win a lot.