Despite the effort to craft this proposal, we think it falls short of all the pre-requisite due diligence to pass through in order to get clearance for on an on-chain vote. The proposal claims to address problems described by a monolithic architecture of node operation, which is actually quite false due to the distributed nature of consensus operators in the Hub. Each validator is in charge of receiving, filtering, transmitting and ultimately processing transactions. Some features and parameters can be adjusted independently by each node (min fee, internal RPC filtering, etc…) creating a diverse set of defenses. If we were to ever face the type of attack you are mentioning in the post, individual nodes might come to different solutions, which in turn offers a much more resilient approach than relying on third party dependencies.
Moreover the Cosmos Ecosystem in general seems to have opted for a different route in order to address the challenges you mentioned. Some teams have even entirely dedicated their work to overcome these challenges, notably Skip.
Overall, we think their approach is better suited for the present times. It is a situation that may change as things evolve in the future, but for now, we are sorry but we won’t support this proposition.
