No… Build your own chain. Running permissionless CosmWasm on the Hub is too dangerous.
It’s already live. Passed a couple days ago.
1 Like
I generally agree that the current whitelisting model creates significant friction for developers and may be contributing to the lack of CosmWasm activity on the Hub.
However, I wonder whether the discussion should be framed as a binary choice between permissioned and permissionless deployment.
One of the concerns mentioned in the post is that the current system lacks granularity: once an address is approved, it can deploy an unlimited number of contracts. Ironically, this means the current model already relies heavily on trust after the initial governance approval.
Would it make sense to explore intermediate approaches before moving to fully permissionless deployment? For example:
-
Permissionless deployment combined with higher upload fees.
-
Contract registration requirements for frontend discoverability.
-
Rate limits for newly created deployer accounts.
-
Additional scrutiny only for contracts seeking protocol-level integrations or special privileges.
This could reduce developer onboarding friction while preserving some safeguards for the Hub ecosystem.
I’m also curious whether there is data available comparing CosmWasm deployment activity across Neutron, Osmosis, and other permissionless chains. Understanding how many unique teams, contracts, and active applications emerged after moving to permissionless deployment would help quantify the potential upside rather than relying solely on anecdotal evidence.
Overall, reducing deployment friction seems directionally correct, but I think empirical data and intermediate design options could strengthen the case for a governance proposal.
permissionless is already live now.