Who exactly are the developers that will absolutely not use Neutron and only use the Cosmos Hub? And whoever they are, they are retarded.
All of the things you are saying can be done today on Neutron. Neutron is not an L2, it is an L1 and it secured by Cosmos Hub validators. There is no practical difference between deploying and running a web assembly on Neutron or the Cosmos Hub itself. It is code that runs and is secured by Cosmos Hub validators.
Moreover Neutron can make changes that enhance its ability as CosmWasm execution environment while Cosmos Hub can make changes that make it better ICS engine. These are very difficult engineering tasks and it is not good to be combining them. It is good to split things in modules where the code runs separate. In this case, you have modularization by creating app-specific chains. CosmWasm chain is Neutron. Running CosmWasm is Neutron’s app.
It seems to me you don’t quite understand the app-chain thesis of Cosmos and keep falling into Ethereum style thinking (one global computer to rule them all). There is nothing wrong with that, but just like mainframe computers gave away to PCs and networks, monolithic blockchains will not be able to do it all.
In any case, 80% of ATOM holders will vote against a permissionless CosmWasm on the Hub. It’s a Quixotian crusade, dude. You think more like a marketer and I understand your arguments, but there is already Solana, Polkadot - there is a ton of Rust web assembly engines out there. I don’t think you understand the broad competitive landscape for this technology. Putting CosmWasm on the Hub doesn’t add any additional functionality that isn’t available today on Neutron, Solana or elsewhere. Neutron already offers a pathway for CosmWasm smart contracts to graduate to ICS chains.
I really don’t have issues with Cosmos tech. I have issues with its inflation management. It was ok to have 10-20% inflation in the 2019-2022 period because the Fed was printing money and US money supply was growing 5-20% per year. But since 2023, Fed is engaging in QT (quantitative tightening) and the money supply has been negative. If the ATOM token keeps printing at 10-20% inflation rate, its dollar price is headed straight down, all else being equal. If you want the $$ price to be stable, ATOM token inflation has to be more responsive to $$ supply trends. ATOM inflation had to be drastically reduced in that negative M2 period. All high inflation tokens are getting pummeled over the past year (DOT, ATOM, AVAX) and all the money is going to BTC because BTC’s inflation is more inline with what is going with M2. The ATOM community is not very financially savvy, very dogmatic in its approach and is not flexible enough to understand and manage the ATOM price based on ATOM’s business adoption and the overall macro trends. Big part of the problem is that the founder (Jae) and the clique around him doesn’t think ATOM price is something to be managed.
