Hi Jacob, thanks for engaging!
I think the Cosmos Hub has for too long been afraid to compete to be the center of actual activity.
You mention Neutron (one of many potential ICS chains that could provide unrestricted applications), which has only given atom holders 12% of the token share, which leaves founders (23%) + early backers/vcs (11%) to have 34%. By agreeing to not have features that ICS chains can do puts the Hub in a situation where it is dependant on what ICS can generate, which with fees etc might be insignificant for a long time period. I’m not even suggesting the Hub becomes a place for unrestricted dApps, just those that ATOM delegators determine are good enough to embrace into the Hub.
These top tier applications can then be marketed to investors in other chains, while right now there is no real way to associate Cosmos the brand with these techniogical achiements since they exist on so many different chains derived from the Hub.
The Hub needs liquidity directly onchain to become the actual hub. Remember, ICS chains can always eventually leave ICS and become sovereign, and if ATOM holders don’t own a significant share of the tokens then what was the point?
The hub has already encountered this dilemma before… is the hub a hub if IBC doesn’t necessitate a hub? Is the hub just one of many hubs if it’s not the center of the entire interchain, IBC included. A trusted dApp store at the center of the interchain would make the hub the ‘hub’, where all activity and transactions would flow through.
Finally, I think using no with veto on legitimate proposals can lead to a chilling effect on new ideas This is because people might fear the risk of losing their funds, so would not risk proposing certain ideas.