Quick note to start off - we’ve removed the 450k ATOM request as its not necessary for this focus of this proposal.
In terms of AEZ, staking reward is not going to be the main driver of revenue behind the proposal. As Composable continues connecting to external ecosystems via IBC, each will offer a revenue split back to the hub for transations. Specifically, we see our upcoming connection to Ethereum as a major driver of transaction volume to and from the Cosmos ecosystem which will be split and diverted back to the AEZ in addition to typical validator rewards.
As we continue connecting IBC to additional ecosystems (other L1’s, rollups, etc.) this will allow the AEZ to benefit anywhere IBC is used outside of Cosmos.
My point here is that these numbers aren’t sufficient to validators and they seem unrealistic.
Validator revenue: At current prices, this is $733.33 per month to ~160 validators. At current prices, on average this would amount to $55 per year paid to validators (1,666,666.67 PICA per month * 12 months * $0.00044 per PICA / 160 validators in the active set). Let me know if my math is off.
Estimated metrics: Thank you for sharing the metrics you listed in the proposal, but I’m finding it difficult to understand how and where these numbers are derived. Do you have any realistic estimates of what to expect in transaction volume? $1M in average daily tx volume seems inconceivable right now. Transfer fees of $10 per xfer is not something realistic that the protocol will be able to charge on top of gas fees. I guess what I’m saying is that these numbers are made up.
I would strongly recommend Composable attempt to find product market fit first, then submit a proposal to be added to the AEZ.
On top of this, I am not blaming if the rumors about them being scammers are true or false, the original scam orchestrate is working with the team right now or not. Their market reputation is not good. Just check all over the internet. And onboarding them doesn’t make ATOM/AEZ look good.
Now, if they are honest people with a working product and everything, they need to start working on the marketing to present their true picture. After that, we should talk about onboarding.
Long overdue in getting around to commenting on this…
As a fan of interoperability across any and all ecosystems, I am all for this proposal. Having more IBC connections connecting more ecosystems will only make every ecosystem stronger.
In the interest of disclosure, as a Polkadot native who enjoys Cosmos very much, I crowd loaned more DOT to the CL team than any other. I believed in their vision then, and do so even more so now with their focus on IBC and connecting other chains/ecos.
Although I cannot speak on whether or not the numbers demonstrated above are realistic, I am still hopeful that the broader Cosmos community and its validators will support this initiative so that we can all become that much more connected.
Guys, can you please explain your change and incident response process for the Composable chain and bridge?
The DOT <> Cosmos bridge has been down for 10 days and there are no public comms outside your Telegram channel.
This is simply not good enough for the public service you provide.
I’d like to see both your change management and incident response process provided publicly before you go anywhere near ICS and connecting additional chains to IBC.
On validator revenue here, your math looks to be correct w/ consideration to current rewards rate/market price.
In terms of estimated metrics, further projections can be based on taking a 30-Day average volume over the past 90-Days from Axelar (ETH <> Cosmos) and Wormhole (SOL <> Cosmos <> ETH). From here, we can take estimates of ‘Volume Captured,’ ie., the % of this volume that we may expect to see across the Composable IBC connections. Below I will outline how this looks from the variable fee perspective as this will most likely be the avenue we use.
Validator column in the images below denotes est. fees per validator (total fees (30-Days) * 20% / 160 validators)
0.4% Fee
0.5% Fee
We then look at a relatively conservative estimate of Est. Volume Capture in the 20-30% range. We are heavily focused in finding a balance that ensures validators are compensated for the extra upkeep they are managing, while users do not face fees that price them out of the market.
We hope that you can take our previous response into consideration:
We have a team of 30+ individuals that have put an enormous amount of time and effort into building and shipping these products to deliver IBC everywhere and that remains & continues to be our core goal.
Over the coming weeks we’ll be working toward improved marketing and transparency that look to meet the cocerns you have voiced.
This is not exclusive to ETH <> Cosmos. As additional IBC connections are opened between new ecosystems, fees generated from this activity will continue to flow back to the validators securing our Cosmos chain, and stakers of the PICA token.
With all due respect to the work you’ve achieved. This project doesn’t pass our basic due diligence.
Frankly we have raised way too many red flags while even just scratching the surface.
On behalf of Govmos (the governance arm of PRO Delegators’ validator) we will not support this proposition.
Just wanted to come on here and leave a comment to state our intentions to vote NO on this if it manages to go on chain for a couple of reasons.
Firstly for us and the main reason for our NO vote it that right now ICS does not work, although both Stride and Neutron are great projects for us as validators it has made no sense with our validators total earnings from Neutron since genesis being $0.02 !!!
It’s just ridiculous to even consider adding more chains until we can first come to a resolution to the poor revenue for validators especially as the ones taken all the risk in terms of additional slashing risks with running more and more infra. So for that reason will vote NO on any proposals to onboard new consumers until there is some sort of benefit to the validators taking the risk.
We have already seen how the poor revenue has effected chain upgrades on both Neutron and Stride with the largest validators in the ecosystem opting to not take part at all meaning it is taking far longer to reach consensus that it has before. I’m assuming they do this to protect themselves from risking their Atom attempting to upgrade chains that simply offer nothing to validators other than additional costs and risk!
Second reason for voting no on this is as a validator currently very active in the ICS testnet I was pretty shocked at the lack of organization on the Composable side, the first upgrade to on board composable as an ICS chain took a very long time as no one seemed to announce to the current/now old testnet validators that an upgrade was even happening and yesterday the reverse happened where no cosmos hub validator was aware of an upgrade taking place so the chain halted!!
See image of validators who upgraded and bare in mind we only upgraded 20mins after we first got alerts from out monitoring, this to me shows firstly a lack of respect to the hub validators by not even considering to let us know there was an upgrade and secondly a lack of professionalism.
And lastly I see you have since removed the request for 450k ATOM but find it quite sus you needed it when you put the prop up but after some backlash you don’t need it?? This makes no sense and actually just looks like the request was intended as a money grab as that is a pretty substantial amount to suddenly not need.
We’ve responded to this publicly, but for context here,
This was in regards to our testnet. These efforts help us collect feedback to accelerate our development and launch the first Ethereum IBC connection. Being that these are all testnet funds, they hold no monetary value.
The request for 450k ATOM would have been directed towards making ATOM more widely available in cross-chain applications, but we felt it was out of scope in regards to the ICS proposal itself. Our only intention was to keep the focus of discussion for this post on ICS.
We apologize for the confusion around yesterday’s testnet upgrade. Our first ICS testnet had remained online longer than planned and the upgrade announcement was not disseminated properly to the hub validators. We certainly don’t mean this in any disregard for hub operators and will have communications corrected moving forward.
Stakewolle support this proposal.
Composable’s commitment to expanding IBC and exporting ATOM liquidity to other ecosystems is commendable. This proposal aligns perfectly with the goals of achieving a more interconnected and secure blockchain ecosystem.
We believe that Composable at AEZ will bring significant benefits not only to Composable’s ecosystem and users but also to the broader Cosmos ecosystem, its validators and users.
