At Govmos, we hold mixed feelings regarding this proposal. While we acknowledge its intent, several aspects are highly disputable. Below, we aim to provide clear and consistent reasoning for why we cannot support the proposal in its current form.
Key Points of the Proposal
The proposal centers on three main topics:
- Leaving ICS Replicated Security
- Discussing Future Political Alignments
- Transferring 40,567,950 NTRN from the Cosmos Hub to a Joint Committee
We will address each of these points in detail.
1. Leaving ICS Replicated Security
In previous discussions on this forum, we publicly advocated for Neutron to migrate to a smaller validator set using Partial Set Security (PSS) rather than remaining within the Replicated Security framework. While we support Neutron’s decision to leave Replicated Security, we believe the preferable path would have been transitioning to ICS v2.0’s Partial Set Security model instead of pursuing a fully sovereign economic model.
2. Discussing Future Political Alignments
This is where we have the strongest criticisms. The proposal states:
“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.”
This statement acknowledges Neutron’s intent to become sovereign, which is entirely within its rights as a chain in the Cosmos ecosystem. However, we strongly oppose the following claim:
“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.”
This assertion is misleading. The Cosmos Hub has not failed to deliver on shared security. Instead, it has evolved to a more flexible framework with Partial Set Security (PSS), making the deprecation of the outdated Replicated Security (RS) model a logical step. Furthermore, it is important to remember that the Hub granted Neutron 50,000 ATOMs through Proposal #72, which explicitly funded smart contract applications leveraging Interchain Security. By leaving the ICS framework, Neutron is the party choosing to dissolve the agreement, not the Hub.
3. Transferring 40,567,950 NTRN from the Cosmos Hub to a Joint Committee
The core of the proposal revolves around recovering funds allocated to the community pool to finance Neutron’s sovereign migration. The authors state:
“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.”
We find this reasoning concerning. Neutron was partially funded by the Hub and is now the party breaking the agreement established in Proposal #72. If the Hub were to apply similar logic, it could demand the return of the 50,000 ATOMs granted to Neutron.
It is also worth noting that Neutron could have chosen to migrate to PSS instead of pursuing full sovereignty, which would have aligned with the terms of Proposal #72.
Conclusion
Our stance on this proposal is clear: the Cosmos Hub has no viable reason to relinquish custody of the allocated funds. These funds were entrusted to the Hub under the community’s responsibility, and we believe they should remain so. While we support responsible and cooperative use of these funds (in line with the “do no harm” and “cooperation” principles), we cannot endorse the proposed retrieval of NTRN.
We are, however, aligned with @Thyborg’s suggestion to explore a joint allocation between Neutron and the Hub via Hydro. This approach would better reflect the spirit of collaboration and shared responsibility.
Thank you for reading,
Govmos
