Gas Price Discussion
“Transaction on the relay-chain will likely be priced higher than they will be on parachains. This is because most of the computational work is expected to be delegated to the parachains which have differing implementations and features.” — From Polkadot
When we switch relay-chain to “hub” and parachains to “zones”, it seems that the structure are similar for Cosmos and Polkadot.
I argue that, based on similarity of structure with Polkadot, Cosmos Hub also needs higher gas-price because of below logic.
- Cosmos Hub will not handle super massive number of txs because most txs will be handled in scalability focused zones internally.
- Value of atom is equal to the discounted sum of tx fees gathered from staked atom
- Low number of txs with lower gas-price result in low market cap of atoms
- Low market cap of atoms will lead to smaller collaterized security for the Cosmos Hub, therefore it breaks down the utility of interchain for the Hub.
Enforced High Gas Price
To have such high gas-price, the min-gas-price configure should not be freely compete. It will lead to the “race of bottom” of gas-price, which will ultimately result in break-down of value proposition(interchain utility) of atoms and Cosmos Network. So I argue that the minimum of min-gas-price should be fixed enoughly high in the protocol level.
Atoms Staked for Different Zones
Against these above arguements, @zaki argued that atoms can be staked for multiple zones including the Hub, so that atoms can gather tx fees not only from the hub but also from different zones. It means that atoms will be the native staking token for many zones in the Cosmos Network.
When I think of the current status of zones, none of them have will to provide zones without their own native staking token. They want to raise capital by ICO/IEO which is possible because the token can be the native staking token of the new network. @zaki’s argument denies these economical demands. How the projects can survive without ICO/IEO of their native staking tokens? Who will fund them? ICF provides maximum 200k funding, which will be used up in several months for most projects. Can ICF fund each of the projects millions of dollars? It is impossible from my viewpoint.
Even without the need of validator infrastructure, most ERC20 projects raised capital by ICO because they need money. In Cosmos Network, zones need more money than ERCO20 because they not only need to build their product, but also need to gather trustable validator infrastructure. They just simply cannot skip ICO. I think only projects on the main roadmap of Cosmos Netwokr, for example, BTC peg, DeX, Ethermint, can be operated without ICO.