[Proposal #985][VOTING] Fund testnets and mainnet ops by Hypha in 2025

Hub Proposals Community Spend
21

We’re in voting!

Thanks for your support, everyone :bowing_woman:

Some final logistics about the on-chain prop:

  • We did a final adjustment to the ATOM estimates: $6.5 USD ATOM price for a total ask of 200k USDC and 86,538.46 ATOM (which includes the 25% returnable buffer).
  • In block explorer UI, ATOM is denominated in whole ATOM (not uatom) but the IBC-wrapped USDC is denominated in uusdc. Expect to see 200,000,000,000 uusdc on our prop, which is 200,000 USDC :slight_smile:
  • The IPFS pin of the full text and forum comments does not include this comment.

We did several rounds of testing on this proposal because (we think) this is the first time a community spend proposal is requesting two different denoms from the community pool.

Here is the public result of a final successful pre-flight check we did this morning.

  • Proposal 218 on the provider testnet proposed funding wallet cosmos1ax7krw2ymq8upaxwce7df3xpalpp0jddm29fws with 1,000 ibc/04FF59 and 1.5 ATOM.
  • This wallet was empty prior to being funded by the proposal.
  • After passing, the wallet now contains 1,000 ibc/04FF59 and 1.5 ATOM.

In private tests, we also found an unexpected detail – the ordering of the denoms matters! Our tests failed when listing the denoms with ATOM first, then the IBC-wrapped denom.

Fortunately, a sorted list with the IBC-wrapped denom first and then the ATOM denom executed as expected :pray:

6 Likes
22

Hypha has been great, cosmosrescue supports this proposal and voted YES

2 Likes
23

Voted yes with my personal ATOM. :heart_hands:

1 Like
24

Does the cosmos Hub replicated security test net resemble mainnet in any way shape or form?

No it doesn’t

The @cosmoshub replicated security testnet run by @HyphaCoop is worse than useless.

The reason that it is worse than useless is that well people might want to test various scenarios. But if you try to test those various scenarios, they will pass on testnet but fail in the real world, thereby failing at the simple purpose of being a test Network worth testing on.

It’s impossible to overstate the danger that this adds.

And yes, I am saying the changes were made to hide P2P storms.

We can disagree on this but it’s easy to verify what I am saying, so I hope that you check, and learn that the supermajority thing was changed while testing was occuring, that hypha was informed that their changes masked dangerous scenarios in real ways, and that nothing has changed for two years and that funding was given to fix this, but no fix occured.

All relevant conversations are in the hub’s testnet validator channel, unless they’ve been deleted.