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.
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.
Warn people to bridge ATOM to Neutron before bridging any other token.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
