I personally see two mid-term potential paths for the Hub. Either
A) it’s an interchain service aggregator so users stay on the Hub where each consumer chain is a service that interacts with the rest of the interchain (abstracts away cross-chain activity for better UX). These are consumer-facing applications (where historically most value accrues).
Or
B) Create infrastructure that allows for atomic cross chain composability, and incubates new chains. These were the Scheduler and Allocator. I would heavily support these being funded.
Regardless, the Hub does need a future vision of where it fits in a modular world (settlement? DAS? Sequencing?). A grant for R&D specifically on this subject would be nice, and the Hub needs to start thinking about its next phase…because it won’t include RS in its current capacity.
5 Likes
At a cost each vote. Anyone asking to be given tokens or money from a community should have to show a return prior to asking for that donation.
As to the R&D, why not utilize the community in brainstorming for this? Paying out smaller rewards this way and getting people involved that have skin in the game would quite possibly yield far better results than an external think tank that would gain with no risk
given the open source nature of the hub and the public good centric mandate of the ICF in combination with ranked choice voting i roughly summarized previously to fund projects the community would most like to see without relying on the opinions and administration of a few funding gatekeepers on the communities dime, is it not the case that the hub should change slowly and deliberately based on cyclical market conditions where the hub funds experimental and innovative initiatives and once they successfully demonstrate their value the hub appropriates them into their hub and spoke model?