# \[PROPOSAL #72\]\[ACCEPTED\] Bringing Liquid Staking and DeFi to the Cosmos Hub with Interchain Security **URL:** \ **Category:** Community Spend\ **Tags:** accepted\ **Created:** [May 23, 2022, 6:41pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623 "2022-05-23T18:41:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Spaydh](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/spaydh/32/2827_2.png) [@Spaydh](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/Spaydh)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2022, 11:52pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623/45 "2022-07-30T23:52:14Z")
A few examples Atom only: - Need to get ATOM + what you want to use on Neutron and bridge both to get started - You can get stuck if you send all of your ATOMs to another wallet/chain (instead of being - Paying fees in stablecoins is more legible and isn’t frustrating when ATOM moons With all tokens as fee tokens: - Just bridge whatever you want to use on Neutron - You can transact as long as you have assets on Neutron - You can pay fees in stablecoins, in other tokens you earn as rewards but don’t want to keep, etc. ---
**Author:** ![jacobgadikian](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/jacobgadikian/32/6994_2.png) [@jacobgadikian](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/jacobgadikian)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2022, 7:18am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623/46 "2022-07-31T07:18:03Z")
If I was voting? All tokens. But there’s a bunch of decisions and code between here and there-- probably most importantly where the price feeds come from, and what to do with them. ---
**Author:** ![Spaydh](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/spaydh/32/2827_2.png) [@Spaydh](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/Spaydh)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2022, 8:39am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623/47 "2022-07-31T08:39:43Z")
For sure, the devil is in the details! I’m happy to ask the team for a detailed spec of how this could be implemented to present it to the community. Happy to discuss what you think is the best way to implement too. ---
**Author:** ![BlocksUnited](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/blocksunited/32/2900_2.png) [@BlocksUnited](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/BlocksUnited)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2022, 8:46pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623/48 "2022-07-31T20:46:02Z")
If it were up to a vote now, I’d vote to keep ATOM as the gas token on Neutron. That’s what proposal 72 promised, value accrual to ATOM through projects built on Neutron, needing it for gas. Trying to change it feels hella deceptive to me. Having an ATOM faucet for people on Neutron will likely alleviate the issues you mentioned. Additionally, warning or instructing people to bridge ATOM tokens over to Neutron before bridging any other token will help. We run a Polygon validator node too and people make the mistake of bridging their stable coins over before bridging their MATIC tokens over and they get stuck. The Polygon team set up a gasless swap feature so folks who are stuck can swap their stables for MATIC and they’re good to go. 1. Warn people to bridge ATOM to Neutron before bridging any other token. 2. Have an ATOM faucet on Neutron. 3. Have a gasless swap feature ---
**Author:** ![andreas\_k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9d8465/32.png) [@andreas\_k](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/andreas_k)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2022, 7:16am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623/49 "2022-08-01T07:16:17Z")
This proposal has spurred a lot of healthy debate but it’s absolutely fair to clarify this point before submitting the proposal on-chain, since it is extremely important. Looking forward for your detailed spec. ---
**Author:** ![Spaydh](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/spaydh/32/2827_2.png) [@Spaydh](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/Spaydh)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2022, 8:33am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623/50 "2022-08-01T08:33:42Z")
Absolutely, we have no intention of making such a change against the will of the community. I’m a bit confused as to what here can be construed as “deceptive”: I am simply stating that I believe that there is a better solution, that is (at least) as beneficial to ATOM and the Cosmos Hub (if not more in the long term), and that I’d like it to be discussed and eventually voted on by the Hub’s community. ---
**Author:** ![BlocksUnited](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/blocksunited/32/2900_2.png) [@BlocksUnited](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/BlocksUnited)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2022, 4:49pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623/51 "2022-08-02T16:49:39Z")
Proposal 72 calls for ATOM to be the gas token on Neutron. Introducing the idea to change that right after the propsal passed feels like the plan was never to use ATOM as the gas token at all and tricking the community. Please help us understand how using any token other than ATOM for gas on Neutron accrues value toward the ATOM token. ---
**Author:** ![Spaydh](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/spaydh/32/2827_2.png) [@Spaydh](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/Spaydh)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2022, 5:10pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623/52 "2022-08-02T17:10:54Z")
In the current model, only 25% of the fee create lasting buy pressure on ATOM. What I am proposing does not change that, but it gives Neutron a better UX, making it more likely to be successful, thereby increasing the fee volume itself, and hence the Cosmos Hub’s cut too. ---
**Author:** ![murthy\_vitwit](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/murthy_vitwit/32/3055_2.png) [@murthy\_vitwit](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/murthy_vitwit)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2022, 10:18am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623/53 "2022-08-03T10:18:47Z")
After going through all the conversations till the end. I have the same questions as @robert.zaremba. @jelena Can you give your thoughts on the above questions? ---
**Author:** ![jacobgadikian](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/jacobgadikian/32/6994_2.png) [@jacobgadikian](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/jacobgadikian)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2022, 5:01am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623/54 "2022-08-16T05:01:32Z")
Spaydh, I think that this: > > > Given the poor track record of the upstream cosmos-sdk repo: > > \* Development on… the upstream cosmos/cosmos-sdk repo has been painful slow > \* QA has historically been very poor and I would wait for 4+ mainnet deployments (and a 0.47 or 0.48 release) to consider the current 0.46 branch safe > \* The major feature in 0.46 (groups and govs) is not so useful for CosmWasm chains and brings a very dangerous attack surface > \* The defence of heavy use of non-deterministic items in the repo, which they don't even see as bugs to be fixed (last 2 Juno halts were shrugged off as "expected behavior" from their side) > \* Lack of progress on features many chains have requested (like faster storage layer, solid orm) > > Given the solid track record and aligned goals of osmosis-lab's fork: > > \* Patching a number of 0-day exploits before the upstream SDK > \* Making a number of performance improvements > \* Desire to replace all use of \`map\` with \`BTreeMap\` generic or such, to avoid random sort order > \* Desire to stabilize core modules to eventually make StargateMsg and StargateQuery safe, like in a sane blockchain sdk > > I propose: > > \* Wasmd make an official release using osmosis-lab's fork (eg. v0.28.0-osmosis) > \* From the next release on, we make this default, and maintain the "original" sdk as another tag (eg v0.29.0, v0.29.0-cosmos) > \* Confio work closely with Osmosis labs to provide proper stability guarantees in the cosmos-sdk needed for CosmWasm chains > \* We invite all other organizations (especially IG) to collaborate on this fork \*focused on the demanding needs of all CosmWasm-enabled chains\* > > I would first focus on stabilising the 0.45.x branch and then collaborate on a new release that ports over any useful work from 0.46 (like mempool integration). And I would consider deprecating cosmos/cosmos-sdk@0.46 as they just \[showed was possible with Tendermint\](https://interchain-io.medium.com/discontinuing-tendermint-v0-35-a-postmortem-on-the-new-networking-layer-3696c811dabc). Sometimes you need to break a few eggs to one forward... Is going to prove to be extremely painful for Neutron, but I really can’t say that it is the wrong path exactly. In fact I am over there, affirming the path, and saying the unsaid things in that github issue. I remain supportive of Neutron, but once again wish to state my deep concerns about the hub as safe producer chain for Neutron. In order for the hub to be a safe producer chain for Neutron (or anything else): - ICF should change its delegations. They’re dangerous. - Hub should control its own software repository, not an external org (ICF is not cosmos nor is it the cosmos hub) - SDK needs to be stabilized, and this involves improving tendermint. - ICF needs to stop hiring the Rick Dudleys of this world, and funding the Hub’s competitors like laconic network via contracts for imaginary problems. - ICF needs to communicate with the community directly instead of via proxies like hypha (note to @lexa and other Hypha team members: I personally value your work and think that you work earnestly. I also think you’re being used as proxies.) - Informal Systems needs a clearly defined role. I view it as merely an extension of the ICF - IG should rebrand, if it is not merely an extension of the ICF - Public, accountable communication ought to be the norm, note the extreme differences between the lido forum and this one. That is due to “the fish rots from the head” sadly. I’m really sorry to have to deliver this news, I only learned of it today and if I’d known earlier, I would have said so. I should also make extremely clear: Informal Systems and Interchain GMBH both employ many highly skilled engineers. The issues here aren’t with the engineers. ---
**Author:** ![Spaydh](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/spaydh/32/2827_2.png) [@Spaydh](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/Spaydh)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2022, 4:12am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623/55 "2022-08-17T04:12:56Z")
Thank you for bringing this to my attention Jacob 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![qingwei\_shi](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/qingwei_shi/32/5225_2.png) [@qingwei\_shi](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/qingwei_shi)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2023, 2:54pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623/56 "2023-05-29T14:54:25Z")
如何看待neutron这个项目？水水水水 [Previous page](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-72-accepted-bringing-liquid-staking-and-defi-to-the-cosmos-hub-with-interchain-security/6623.md?page=2)