[PROPOSAL 993][DRAFT] Neutron and the Hub: A new chapter

Changelog


2025-03-19:

  • Updated governance votes language to clarify the scope of the proposal, namely Neutron’s migration to a sovereign network and the allocation of NTRN.
  • Clarified that the Cosmos Hub’s decision on whether or not to enable permissionless smart-contracts is a separate matter that will be handled in dedicated governance votes.

2025-03-26:

  • Added commitment from the Neutron Foundation to return 50,000 ATOM received from Proposal 72 to the Cosmos Hub Community Pool.
  • Added signer details and multisig addresses

Introduction


Cosmos Hub has evolved tremendously over the past few years.

As the Hub adopts a new stewardship and vision, centered around the creation of a native ATOM ecosystem and provisioning of interchain services, there is a unique opportunity to reassess the Hub’s legacy products and focus all resources on delivering a coherent vision for the Hub.

Neutron has always been a pioneering partner of the Cosmos Hub. When the Hub doubled down on Interchain Security (ICS), Neutron became the first project to bring the technology to market.

Today, as the Hub refocuses on building a native ecosystem on the Cosmos Hub and bridging services rather than Replicated Security, we propose to evolve the relationship between Neutron and the Cosmos Hub in order to create favorable conditions for a mutually supportive relationship moving forward.

Background


This section is intended to provide factual background information that is relevant to the broader proposal.

A brief history of permissionless smart-contracts on the Hub

Cosmos Hub governance initially rejected the launch of permission-less smart-contracts on the Hub as part of Proposal #69, deeming the technology too risky and incompatible with the Hub’s desired minimalism. At the time, the preferred path was to enable permissionless smart-contracts via a consumer chain, enabling Gaia to stay minimal while bringing developers and use cases in close alignment with $ATOM.

Core Cosmos Hub contributors at Informal Systems began searching for the right team to build a DeFi ecosystem around the Hub. P2P contributors proposed to build Neutron, the Cosmos Hub’s execution environment, which was approved by Cosmos Hub governance via Proposal #72.

The team subsequently spun-out of P2P to form Hadron Labs and the Neutron Foundation and develop the network, which launched on ICS on May 10th, 2023 as part of Proposal #792.

The Cosmos Hub community reconsidered its stance on permissionless smart-contracts on the Hub multiple times, with visions differing from permissioned CW to enable faster iteration of governance to acquiring and merging with Osmosis or building a “DeFi App Store” on the Hub.

Most recently, the Interchain Foundation acquired Skip to form Interchain Labs, which took over the maintenance of the core stack and Cosmos Hub.

Interchain Labs began working on a clear, unified vision for the Cosmos Hub, that of a central Hub for the IBC ecosystem, with Eureka routing and bridging products and permissionless smart-contracts on the Hub.

While this is an exciting vision, it is at odds with the historical expectations Neutron and the Cosmos Hub’s relationship was built on, and so it’s a good opportunity to revisit how things should be reshaped moving forward.

Background on Replicated Security

Replicated Security launched on Cosmos Hub following Proposal #187. Neutron was the first network to launch on the feature, following Proposal #792. Replicated Security was meant and advertised a simpler way for projects to launch in the Interchain while benefiting from increased ATOM alignment before they eventually graduate to sovereign networks.

Many Cosmos Hub validators proved extremely supportive and valuable to the project early-on. More than 35 validators opted to run Neutron despite not being required to thanks to the Soft Opt-Out feature.

The history of Replicated Security was also marked with a flawed economic model which disincentivized validators from investing time and resources into consumer chains, and with a number of technical challenges:

On the day of Neutron’s planned launch, Hypha and Informal identified a bug in the Cosmos Hub’s ICS code. This bug prevented validators that used ledgers from performing key assignment. This dramatically impacted the launch and resulted in an extremely painful, 48 hour-long process.

Since then, there were multiple instances of >12 hours downtime after correct instructions were distributed by the Neutron core teams to the validator set. In the latest instance, which occurred on January 13th this year, downtime lasted more than >19 hours after correct instructions were distributed. The specific sequence of event is documented in the post mortem here.

These incidents significantly increased risks for DeFi protocols in the ecosystem and hampered the project overall.

Background on the Hub’s community pool NTRN

In proposal #792, Neutron offered to allocate 7% of its genesis supply to an airdrop to ATOM holders. The initial proposal planned that unclaimed tokens would be clawed back by the Neutron DAO and used to growth the Neutron ecosystem and $ATOM use cases on the platform.

Following the proposal, contributors from Informal Systems, AADAO and other Cosmos Hub-adjacent teams lobbied in favor of updating the proposal such that the NTRN would instead be sent to the community pool.

Neutron contributors eventually accepted the change as an upfront payment for the Cosmos Hub’s economic security and overall support through ICS for the coming decades.

As part of Proposal #835, 42,727,950 NTRN tokens were transferred to the Cosmos Hub community pool and rough guidelines for how the tokens should be handled were approved by Cosmos Hub governance:

  1. Do no harm: The Cosmos Hub, its governance and community pledge to only use or deploy the NTRN tokens in ways that do not harm the Neutron network or DAO.
  2. Cooperation: The Cosmos Hub, its governance and community pledge to use or deploy the NTRN tokens in ways that benefit both the Cosmos Hub and the Neutron network and DAO.

Since then, two distributions of NTRN from the Cosmos Hub community pool were approved:

  • Proposal 867: 1,800,000 NTRN were distributed to Cosmos Hub validators for running Neutron nodes
  • Proposal 931: An additional 360,000 NTRN are earmarked to be distributed to Cosmos Hub validators who ran the Slinky sidecar successfully over the first 3 months of the oracle’s launch on Neutron mainnet.

These showcase a good faith effort to find fair allocations of the NTRN from the community pool that are both cooperative and not harmful.

Rationale


There have been a lot of changes since Neutron launched on Replicated Security and NTRN was airdropped to the Cosmos Hub community: Replicated Security is being deprioritized, the previous maintaining team of RS is no longer being funded, and plans are being made to enable permissionless smart-contracts on the Cosmos Hub to build a local ecosystem around $ATOM and Eureka, etc.

This is a unique opportunity to lay the foundations for mutually beneficial relationships going forward:

The Hub no longer needs an execution environment, and wishes to deprecate Replicated Security. Neutron has sufficiently matured to become an ecosystem of its own.

Therefore, the best path forward is for Neutron should migrate off of Replicated Security and to its own sovereign network.

The Hub will no longer be providing the services it was granted NTRN for, and former Cosmos Hub contributors generally overpromised and failed to deliver on their commitments to the project (e.g., replicated security being no longer maintained, frequent discussions of acquiring or merging with other CW environments, ATOM 2.0 failing, soft POL commitments changing scope). Keeping such a large portion of the token supply in the community pool is bound to generate risk and conflicts. Leaving ICS will also generate tremendous on-going costs for the network to sustain its own security budget.

Therefore, the fair and constructive way to proceed is to distribute payment for the services rendered by the Hub so far, allocate resources to fund the network’s security budget and return the outstanding tokens for the services that were not and will not be provided to the Neutron DAO.

The following proposal achieves these two objectives and a fair allocation of tokens. It provides Interchain Labs with a clean slate to build an exciting roadmap for Cosmos Hub going forward and minimizes future friction around the allocation of NTRN. Finally, it pro-actively assigns resources for future collaboration and provides a clean way for $ATOM holders and validators to receive direct upside from the transitions.

This is an incredibly exciting opportunity to lay the challenges of the past behind us, and create excitement and support for both Neutron and the Hub going forward.

Proposal


This section describes the scope of the proposal’s executable messages and enforceable social signals.

Overview

  • Support Neutron’s graduation to a sovereign network with strong synergies with the Hub
  • Allocate community pool NTRN fairly to support the network’s migration and the adoption of on-chain use cases for ATOM and Hub-related assets
  • Signal support for the development of differentiated and complementary on-chain ecosystems on Neutron and the Hub
  • Enable continued collaboration to drive the adoption of ATOM, Neutron, and the Hub’s interchain services

See the sister proposal on the Neutron forum here: Mercury: Towards the Integrated Endgame - Main DAO Proposals - Neutron Forum

If this proposal is approved by Cosmos Hub governance, the Neutron Foundation has committed to return 50,000 ATOM received as part of Proposal 72 to the Cosmos Hub Community Pool.

Graduation to a Sovereign Network

This proposal signals support for Neutron’s graduation to a fully sovereign network via the Mercury upgrade.

From a technical point of view, the migration does not require any code changes on the Cosmos Hub side. Once completed, it will enable the removal of the Replicated Security and Top-N code from the Cosmos Hub binary. Partial Set Security will remain a feature of the Cosmos Hub.

The graduation process will require a Neutron network upgrade, dubbed Mercury, which will be scheduled via a sister proposal to the Neutron DAO.

To ensure a smooth migration, Cosmos Hub validators must continue to validate the Neutron network until the Mercury upgrade (scheduled for the 9th of April) is completed and the core teams confirm that the validator set transition has occurred properly. This will ensure that IBC channels are properly migrated and continue to operate smoothly, safeguarding user funds and protocols across the Interchain.

This proposal allocates 1M NTRN to Cosmos Hub validators as a reward for their continued service over the coming weeks to perform the network’s transition. The distribution of the rewards will occur after the upgrade is complete and will be coordinated by the Joint Committee (see below). Rewards will be conditioned upon maintaining > 95% uptime for both block production and price updates and successfully carrying out the migration.

Additionally, this proposal allocates 10.8M NTRN to fund the security budget of the network for the next 2 years and enable the continued payment of the post-migration validator set, composed of leading Cosmos Hub validators:

CryptoCrew, Quokka Stake, Allnodes, Chorus One, cosmosrescue, Cosmostation, Crosnest, Golden Ratio Staking, Hadron Labs, Informal Systems, iqlusion, Kiln, P2P, Polkachu, POSTHUMAN, Provalidator, SG-1, Smart Stake, Stake&Relax, Stakecito.

On-going validator set curation with be carried out by the Neutron DAO and Drop protocol.

Additionally, the collection of validator performance data is being finalized by Numia, and Slinky Beta incentives will be distributed shortly, as planned in Proposal 931.

New Rewards & Opportunities for ATOM on Neutron

This proposal allocates 4,272,795 NTRN to the adoption of ATOM and Cosmos Hub products on Neutron. These tokens will be distributed to ATOM token holders who participate in DeFi on Neutron via dedicated campaigns around ATOM use cases, including liquid staking, liquidity provisioning, lending, borrowing, using ATOM and its derivatives as collateral to trade perpetual futures, tributes, and more.

Once this proposal is executed, the Neutron Foundation (NF) will coordinate with ecosystem protocols to coordinate on-chain campaigns, and NTRN budgets will be allocated by the Joint Committee (see below). These campaigns will provide ATOM holders with new opportunities to use ATOM in DeFi and earn outsized rewards.

Return Excess Tokens to the Neutron DAO

This proposal allocates ~53% of the NTRN currently held in the Cosmos Hub community pool to be distributed to ATOM token holders and validators. The remaining ~47% will be transferred back to the Neutron DAO to fund the continued growth of the network and its ecosystem.

Return Prop 72 ATOM to the Cosmos Hub Community Pool

50,000 ATOM were granted by the Cosmos Hub to contributors of the Neutron Project as part of Proposal 72 and later transferred to the Neutron Foundation as part of Proposal 819. The Neutron Foundation never sold ATOM. Instead, it liquid staked its holdings with Stride, then with Drop to support the adoption of ATOM liquid staking.

In the spirit of fairness, if this proposal is adopted by Cosmos Hub governance, the Neutron Foundation commits to returning the 50,000 ATOM to the Cosmos Hub Community Pool.

Continued Collaboration

This proposal lays the foundation for the continued collaboration of the Neutron and Cosmos Hub teams and communities to create on-chain use cases and demand for the ATOM token and the Cosmos Hub’s products:

  • The NF has developed deep knowledge and expertise in ecosystem bootstrapping and will be supporting Interchain Labs’ (ICL) efforts to bootstrap a native ecosystem of new, exciting protocols in and around ATOM and the Cosmos Hub.
  • The continued growth of the Neutron ecosystem will drive demand for ATOM and the Cosmos Hub’s bridging, routing, and solving products, driving value to the Cosmos Hub and the ATOM token.
  • The NF and ICL teams will collaborate to drive the adoption and growth of the Cosmos developer community, accelerating the growth of both networks.

Implementation


NTRN Allocations

The Cosmos Hub Community Pool received 42,727,950 unclaimed tokens from Neutron’s airdrop. The proposed allocations only concern the airdropped tokens and are summarized below for clarity:

Item Amount % Destination
Existing programs 2,160,000 5.06% Already distributed.
Migration coverage 1,000,000 2.34% Joint committee
Security budget 10,800,000 25.28% Joint committee
ATOM incentives 4,272,795 10.00% Joint committee
Future partnerships 4,272,795 10.00% Joint committee
Neutron DAO 20,222,360 47.33% Joint committee
Total 42,727,950 100.00% NA

Joint Committee

This proposal transfers 40,567,950 NTRN from the Cosmos Hub to an Joint Committee made of representatives from both the Cosmos Hub and Neutron communities. Upon the receipt of the NTRN tokens, the committee will allocate the tokens according to the allocations above.

  • 20,222,360 NTRN will be returned to the Neutron DAO
  • 10,800,000 NTRN will be transferred to the validator payment module
  • 9,545,590 NTRN will be retained in the committee’s treasury to fund ATOM/Cosmos Hub-related campaigns on Neutron as well as the continued collaboration of the network communities.

The Joint Committee is a 3/4 multisig on the Cosmos Hub and Neutron networks, which commands the allocation of NTRN tokens received from the Cosmos Hub community pool and is composed of the following representatives from the Neutron and Cosmos Hub community:

Signer Role Address
Travis Cosmos Hub Community Representative cosmos1hpqgpfsrkqawzjjgql47rrrvkqrry49sxpda7q
@agent.kwosh Cosmos Hub Community Representative cosmos1945wsvenrnc6vu0p588jswpc56pv27l3kp0aae
@luisqa Neutron contributor cosmos1ze09kc5ackut7wc4pf38lysu45kfz3ms86w3em
@Spaydh Neutron contributor cosmos1nu7h4xj3em8mr0huh7906qdv89fnxclr7jy8wy

The multisig addresses are the following:

  • Cosmos Hub: cosmos1fl657t883v2l3s953qngd26wn49v8eddygw9rc44v5ms0cxfwk4qddhuhx
  • Neutron: neutron1gxwkypgj884n2gswk3km0ck5js36eqewgx94lxv0pw45w0q6utrsgj4u50

Allocations breakdown

Honor Existing Commitments (Connect Beta + Validator Incentives)

Validator Incentives that have already been allocated to vesting contracts are slated to fully vest on March 26th, 2025.

Connect incentives remain to be distributed. We are finalizing work with Numia to provide the data required to check the validator’s performance and distribute the rewards. Once that is done, we will coordinate with the prop 931 committee signers to execute the transfer.

Fund Validator Operations Leading Up to Migration

Since the migration’s success relies on smooth validator operations, we propose to allocate an additional 1M NTRN to be distributed to validators pro-rata their voting power based on the following criteria:

  • ≥ 50% participation on the last 10 Cosmos Hub proposals
  • ≥ 95% block uptime on Neutron over the past 3 months, looking back from migration time
  • ≥ 95% Slinky uptime on Neutron over the past 3 months, looking back from migration time
  • Properly carry out the migration upgrade

Fund Neutron’s Security Budget Following Migration

To migrate from ICS, Neutron will need to bootstrap a sovereign validator set and fund its operations. Most/all of this set will be inherited from the best/most aligned Cosmos Hub validators.

Tokens will be allocated to the Base Comp mechanism to cover validator costs for the first 24 months of the network’s operations as an independent blockchain.

Fund ATOM-related Campaigns on Neutron

To sponsor the continued alignment of the projects and their communities, ~4M NTRN will be reserved for incentives/campaigns tailored to the Cosmos Hub’s assets and community.

  • Liquidity incentives to ATOM, dATOM, and other Cosmos Hub assets
  • Incentives to cover the opportunity cost of converting from native staking to liquid staking
  • ATOM spot and perps trading campaigns
  • Other ATOM-aligned campaigns

Allocation for Future Joint Ventures

Tokens earmarked to support future joint ventures benefiting both ecosystems, such as supporting the growth and adoption of Cosmos, joint hacker houses and hackathons, etc.

Return Excess to the Neutron DAO

The remainder will be returned to the Neutron DAO Treasury.

Governance votes

The following items summarize the voting options and what it means for this proposal:

YES - You support Neutron’s migration to a sovereign network, the proposed allocation of Community Pool NTRN, and the return of 50K ATOM from Proposal 72 to the Cosmos Hub Community Pool.

NO - You disagree Neutron’s migration to a sovereign network and/or the proposed allocation of Community Pool NTRN.

NO WITH VETO - A ‘NoWithVeto’ vote indicates a proposal either (1) is deemed to be spam, i.e., irrelevant to Cosmos Hub, (2) disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or (3) violates or encourages violation of the rules of engagement as currently set out by Cosmos Hub governance. If the number of ‘NoWithVeto’ votes is greater than a third of total votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.

ABSTAIN - You wish to contribute to the quorum but you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal.

7 Likes

Sad, for me neutron should remain a PSS chain in parallel with the development of permissionless cosmwasm on the hub. For me PSS and ICS remains a sovereign way to develop a chain and scale by simply paying for the validation service but obviously you think the opposite. Apparently cooperation in the cosmos still seems far from ideal and the current situation expresses it well.

I will vote abstain for the simple reason that I support both Neutron and the Hub without agreeing with any of these alternatives.

1 Like

I support the migration of Neutron into a sovereign chain. As a NRTN holder, I’m excited for the vision of an integrated DeFi experience on a fast chain run by a small validator set.

But I have a hard time understanding the reasoning for the claw-back of the Hub’s NTRN. I believe Neutron’s relationship with the Hub accelerated tremendously its development and that this NTRN was earned fair & square.

My suggestion is to let Hydro deploy the NTRN for the benefit of both communities. We would create a new NTRN liquidity bucket on Hydro, make it exclusive to Neutron’s projects, and potentially give NTRN & dNTRN holders the ability to vote. This would enable deep ATOM-NTRN, dATOM-dNTRN, USDC-dNTRN pools on Astroport, more liquidity on Mars etc.

Deployments are being automated via Valence and we would use Mars perps for automated delta-neutral LP-ing - these are two very Neutron-aligned projects.

The Cosmos Hub keeps ownership of the tokens, Hydro generates tributes for voters & yield for the treasury, without selling anything.

What do you think?

5 Likes

This is a false dilemma proposal.
Why’s Neutron’s sovereignty being linked to permissionless smart contracts on the hub?

Is this proposal solely a product of Neutron team, or collab bw Neutron and ICL teams?

Imv, the framing of issues super misguided.

3 Likes

Who’s on this committee?

1 Like

I don’t see why the hub that loses a partner chain should pay to see it leave with its own neutrons. I invite the community to start a more serious discussion around the creation of an investment fund in which the hub would accumulate ICS tokens and keep them as collateral to avoid net losses like the one we are experiencing today.
Related thread: Making the Hub an Investment fund for the interchain - #18 by Guinch_Roze
Either we create a measure of this kind or similar in idea. Or let’s not talk about cooperation anymore and burn these tokens for the repurchase of Atom which would satisfy most of the community in my opinion. I will vote NO to the idea of ​​paying for the departure of neutron. I would vote YES if neutron decided to go under PSS.

1 Like

I think that if we are to talk about the common good of the two chains and the two communities, we should rather think about a merger between these, and the absorption of the Neutron team into ICL. That would be HUGEEEE.

It is unfortunate to see Neutron leaving ICS. Although we were not required to validate Neutron, we did so because we believe in its long-term value for AEZ. We wish we could continue to support it in the future. Nevertheless, we extend our best wishes to the Neutron team for what lies ahead.

I recommend revising the following section of the proposal, as it may be misleading to state that 53% of NTRN will be distributed to ATOM token holders and validators when, in reality, the majority will go to the new Neutron Validator Set.

CrowdControl will vote Abstain or No on this proposal, as the migration coverage presents a clear conflict of interest for any validator. We encourage our delegators to submit their own votes.

Disclaimer : i contribute to one of the core teams for Neutron.

I wasn’t involved in the proposal writing, but agree they shouldn’t have been voted on in one go. Will push for this to be changed. My guess is once the people involved in drafting the proposal are up, they’ll agree too.

3 Likes

Iiuc there are two main motivations :

  • the NTRN was allocated with a bunch of expectations that have been since broken. There was an understanding that Neutron would be the CW layer for the Cosmos Hub, ICS (specifically replicated security) would be a secure and staple product for the CH, and other general cases of former CH representatives that brokered it overpromising and underdelivering (e.g., ATOM 2.0., soft commitments on POL,… and a handful of others). To be fair what reps say behind the scenes is not a contractual agreement but I do believe what’s voted in governance should be treated as so. I think a fair mental model would be that if there was a service agreement that was broken, the customer should pay the service provider for the services rendered and then call the outstanding cancelled. I don’t think this needs to be a negative thing either, I’m incredibly bullish about the new ICL leadership : they are working towards setting a clear and exciting direction for the CH. The fact that Neutron’s role in that story is changing is exciting, not negative, but previous commitments should be altered to also reflect this change. I think pressing the restart button here let’s everyone move forward in a drama minimizing way while retaining some of the original NTRN committed to various ATOM stakeholders in the form of ATOM incentives and previous/future security commitments.
  • the NTRN has been sitting idle because noone can agree about what to do with it that meets the original terms (No Harm, Cooperation). Allocating some of it to CH validators for security costs and some of it to ATOM holders as incentives provides a solution for this - it clearly does no harm to Neutron and would be a collaboration if voted through. Given the change in plans, I’m not sure there will be a cleaner path forward.
2 Likes

I don’t agree that the NTRN was earned “fair and square”.

NTRN was allocated as part of a security agreement (Replicated Security) and a number of other expectations. Since then, Replicated Security, has been announced getting deprecated, the Cosmos Hub seems to be on the path to launching permissionless CW, and many other needles have moved (e.g., the CH’s stance on POL, the AEZ, it’s future value proposition…)

I’m not sure what you mean about “accelerating Neutron tremendously”. My recollection of the past few years is much different. I remember constantly moving goal posts on a number of critical things that affected Neutron’s ability to long term plan and focus (Hub’s direction, future of ICS, the stance on the AEZ, POL policy, Osmosis acq discussions…), poor overall coordination, and chain halts as a result of disinterested validators.

I would say the NTRN that was earned “fair and square” would be the costs incurred so far by Neutron’s Replicated security deployment. These should definitely be honored (and are honored in this proposal). And even some of these payments could be seen as contentious - specifically those to validators responsible for chain halts as a result of being unresponsive during upgrades.

There is also an additional amount of NTRN allocated towards ATOM incentives (past what I’d say was earned “fair and square”). Of the amount being allocated to incentives, it could make sense to allocate some of this through Hydro (I don’t immediately see any reason not to give it a try and scale it from there), but I don’t agree with the rest of your points.

The way I see it is that it’s best to press the restart button here. Give the ICL a drama minimized, clean slate to make new agreements and commitments that get honored in the spirit of their vision for the CH. And give Neutron a drama minimized, clean slate to do the same.

1 Like

I would agree this is very interesting. I think the technical and social complexity of getting it done is makes it impossible to plan for it in the short term. Best to revisit this later and let the ICL + Neutron core teams cook in the mean time.

It would be even more interesting to let the community give its opinion on this hypothetical merger. The result would surprise quite a few of us. And the alignment would be total and win-win. It’s a shame that people don’t see beyond their navel and the financial aspect of their creation.

1 Like

You should make a discussion post then, I would genuinely participate and think some others would too. I think it’d be very difficult to get right but am not opposed to having an open conversation.

We think that it’s ok, because ICS don’t really work

There is no real needs for chains to use ICS, because Cosmos hub don’t really help to consumers chains

It’s easier to run own chain, than use ICS

kind of the same situation we have with Dungeon Chain

When consumers chains joined iCS, they expect for some support from Cosmos Hub, as consumers chains, not only security

But by the fact, any successful chain don’t really need ICS, because it’s easier to run own network, as any way they run own network with governors

If consumers chains will get any help from Cosmos Hub - it will be reason to be consumer chain, but for now - I totaly understnd Neutron

1 Like

YES - You support the launch of permissionless smart-contracts on the Hub, Neutron’s migration to a sovereign network and the proposed allocation of Community Pool NTRN.

I see three props combined Into one.

  1. Permissionless CW has nothing to do with you leaving and thats a seperate prop. Do not Mix and camouflage this into you leaving.

Remove permissionless CW completely from this prop.

Cosmos hub Will set its own prop for that.

  1. Clawback of neutrons. Were these neutron tokens a lend to atom CP?

Remove this part completely from this prop.

  1. Which leaves only neutron leaving in this prop. Do you need a prop for that?

I wish neutron a great success in future endeavor.

2 Likes

I support Neutron’s move toward becoming a sovereign chain.

However, like @agent.kwosh and others have pointed out, this proposal combines completely separate issues - permissionless CosmWasm, clawback of the Hub’s NTRN tokens, and Neutron’s independence.

I would also appreciate seeing a revised proposal draft that removes the permissionless CosmWasm discussion and perhaps only addresses the clawback of the Hub’s NTRN. I believe that Neutron’s decision to leave isn’t something that falls under Hub governance authority (though it makes sense to include as context explaining why the NTRN clawback is being requested).

Thank you.

Regards,
arlai

1 Like

Agree on these comments too – all these items should probably not be bundled together.

  • Since when is it Neutrons business to propose for the HUB to implement permissionlessf CW?

  • are the NTRN in the HUB’s CP the price for the HUB to get green light to implement permissionless CW, because you think as long as you’re ‘here’ the HUB can’t?

  • how is this alignment going to look, is the first thing you’re gonna do adapt Eureka? Right now it reads like we have to trust you on staying ‘aligned’. I am not saying that you’re not trustworthy, but long story short is, you want money and promise alignment. Ah and on top of that the HUB FINALLY gets to implement permissionless CW.

It’s concerning that you haven’t learned from prop 82. The proposal is flawed on many levels, and I wished you opened your new chapter in a more professional way.
That being said, @spaydh if you amend anything on the proposal (after like 30min chatting with the Atom community..telling..) change that part immediately on the forum. Can’t expect people to read through a chat on TG to learn about the current state of a proposal on the forum.

2 Likes

Neutron previously allocated 1.8M for the full ~200 Cosmos Hub active set for the security budget, and this idea of using NTRN from the airdrop for the security budget was suggested by us Cosmic Validator. This was when Neutron was using the Cosmos Hub for security. Now Neutron wants to become independent, and now they want to pay for security to just 20 validators (how were they chosen and how come us are not in that group that led many great ideas and initiciatives for Neutron such as the NTRN from airdrop for the security budget?) a total of 10.8M, so that’s 9M NTRN more and just for around 20 validators not 200, so that’s like almost a x100 bigger reward for those 20 validators than for the whole set of the Cosmos Hub previously. Validators have been supporting Neutron for a long time without revenues, except that security budget idea proposed by us. Why are now just these 20 validators quietly hand picked to earn those huge rewards of 10.8M, this is not fair, any validator who was securing Neutron for these years should also have a chance to continue validating Neutron and earn the rewards

In terms of NTRN, 1.8M for one year for around 200 validators, that’s around 9k NTRN per validator of the Cosmos Hub. Now it is 10.8M for two years for around 20 validators, so that’s 270k NTRN per validator, 30x bigger security budget when Neutron is independent versus when using replicated security, that’s great Neutron. Clearly shows you were just using the Cosmos Hub to subsidize and get security for free, and now when you want to become independent you realize you can’t enjoy free security anymore and now you want to pay, how nice of you to Cosmos Hub validators. And the worst of all, you want to pay this 10.8M NTRN to just a handful of validators friends and family, and give some 1M peanuts to the rest of validators and even worse pro-rata

The Cosmos Hub financed and supported Neutron and the deal was a certain amount of NTRN for the Cosmos Hub community pool, why should now the Hub return half of this because Neutron wants to become independent? There was no deal that if Neutron later would want to become independent the Hub would return any of the NTRN

How is this committee going to be selected?

Why pro-rata? The vesting NTRN for validators were distributed equally for all, so this 1M should also be distributed equally

So, when Neutron is using ICS they are happy being subsidized by validators, and just give some peanuts 1.8M NTRN for the whole validator set after some validators like us complained and proposed some ideas.

Now, Neutron wants to become independent and then they are happy to give 10.8M NTRN for the security budget to just 20 validators. How were these validators selected? You said the best/most aligned, really? We have consistently one of the best uptimes, have been validating the Cosmos hub since 2019 and one of the most active in the forum. Many validators in that list never write here in the forum, joined the Cosmos hub recently and have much worse uptime

4 Likes