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.