This signaling proposal seeks the Cosmos Hub community’s endorsement for the onboarding of Noble as a Consumer Chain. It aims to ensure validators’ support for the Noble network and to instill confidence in the Noble team for expediting the ICS onboarding process.
Seeking the Cosmos Hub community’s approval to onboard Noble as a Consumer Chain
Giving the Noble team the confidence to expedite ICS onboarding.
Details
Noble is the premier asset issuance chain within the Cosmos ecosystem and stands as the primary issuer of native USDC for Cosmos/IBC with plans to expand its asset offerings. Since its inception, Noble has aimed to join the Atom Economic Zone as a Consumer Chain, utilizing the Cosmos Hub’s Interchain Security feature. Transitioning Noble from its current Proof of Authority (PoA) security model to a Consumer Chain is a significant milestone in their roadmap.
To accommodate Noble’s needs and concerns, teams working on the Cosmos Hub and ICS have modified the slashing mechanism, addressing key challenges. The primary obstacle now is to ensure the Noble team receives affirmative assurance of being approved as a consumer chain so they can expedite their planning. The economics regarding the fee and revenue splits from Noble to the Cosmos Hub will be negotiated in the discussions and finalized in the proposal to officially onboard Noble as a Consumer Chain.
This signaling proposal serves to provide the Noble team with the confidence in the Cosmos Community’s approval and the commitment of the active validator set to support the Noble network.
Governance votes
The following items summarize the voting options and what it means for this proposal:
YES - You support the onboarding of Noble as a Consumer Chain and wish to see the Cosmos Hub validator set support the Noble network.
NO - You do not support the onboarding of Noble as a Consumer Chain and wish to not see the Cosmos Hub validator set support the Noble network.
NO WITH VETO - A ‘NoWithVeto’ vote indicates a proposal either (1) is deemed to be spam, i.e., irrelevant to Cosmos Hub, (2) disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or (3) violates or encourages violation of the rules of engagement as currently set out by Cosmos Hub governance. If the number of ‘NoWithVeto’ votes is greater than a third of total votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.
ABSTAIN - You wish to contribute to quorum but you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal.
Question…
How would the Noble chain actually utilize shared security?
I would think whatever chain the USDC is on at that point would use that chains validators?
While Noble has achieved rapid success within the Cosmos ecosystem, I believe they should wait until the Cosmos Hub matures further before partnering for shared security. Perhaps postpone onboarding until the Atom validators are in an empowered position and the new tokenomics proposals have been put on chain. Are there urgent needs to onboard Noble now, when Mesh security and other promising shared security technologies are on the horizon?
As stated, the plan has been for Noble to join ICS since its inception. This is much more important than any tokenomics proposal, and no tokenomics change will make a difference in the Cosmos Hub<>Noble relationship. Continuing to spend most of our time and energy on things that aren’t as much of a prioirity is only holding the Hub and the AEZ back. The Hub can also take part in other security mechanisms as they become available and offer that to their consumers along with its own offerings. Noble would be a chain that receives the full security of the hub either way, so not sure what level of maturity you are referring to?
Thanks for your response and for clarifying the priorities behind Noble’s onboarding, Tricky. I understand the long-term vision for this, and I agree that it’s a significant step for the Atom Economic Zone.
However, I wouldn’t say tokenomics are entirely irrelevant to the Hub-Noble relationship. A stable and mature tokenomic model can play a crucial role in ensuring overall ecosystem stability, benefiting all participants, including ATOM validators and Noble. Proposed changes to ATOM’s inflation and their potential impact on validators’ rewards deserves careful consideration before moving forward in my opinion. I wouldn’t want to see Noble withdraw from RS due to new issues arising from inflation changes or other factors.
While the potential of replicated security is exciting, its long-term viability is still a topic of discussion, being a very new technology. The recent “Atom Welfare Zone” memes highlight validators’ anxieties about the financial burden of being forced to validate new chains. I’m unsure if recent upgrades have fully addressed these concerns, and I believe the upcoming opt-in shared security model holds great promise. Testing its effectiveness before onboarding Noble seems important to gain insights.
Could you please explain how the tokenomics on the hub aren’t mature enough and how changes to that would directly affect Noble? I’m trying to understand your argument more but having trouble with that. Not sure if there’s a misunderstanding about the ICS model in general or if what you’re meaning is still unrelated to Noble onboarding as an ICS chain.
As a validator, from responses here, and in talks with with other fellow validators, Noble is unique and there’s not much anxiety about onboarding them.
There are efforts being made that can be done in parallel to the onboarding of Noble, here is an example of one.
The economics between Noble & the Hub will be worked out separately no matter what tokenomic changes are discussed or eventually made.
I appreciate you bringing your feedback to the topic and having a dialogue about this!
