[Proposal ##][LAST CALL 07/21/2023] Launch Duality on Replicated Security

[common_spelling]

you are proposing making ATOM into the inflationary farming token.

@Elijah

As for the size. 500K ATOM is not the size of the community pool. The community pool has more funds and this is only a fraction of those. It’s also worth noting that the community pool still has rights over the temporarily LPed funds so they are not being stripped from the community pool.

@Elijah

There is no useless inflationary token being exchanged for ATOM in this proposal. ATOM would be liquidity provided, and the community pool would receive the swap fees from that liquidity provision.

according to Wikipedia: In finance, unsecured debt refers to any type of debt or general obligation that is not protected by a guarantor, or collateralized by a lien on specific assets of the borrower in the case of a bankruptcy or liquidation or failure to meet the terms for repayment. This is exactly what Duality is proposing.

@Elijah

There is no unsecured loan. A loan implies Duality would have ownership over the funds and be able to use the funds at will, while being required to pay them back after some time frame. This is not how the liquidity injection works though. Noone at Duality Labs will custody the funds at any point, nor will they be able to use the funds at will. The funds would only be used as described in the proposal with no participation from Duality Labs and the funds go back to the community pool afterwards.

[Elijah]

Will try to ease concerns as there still seems to be some misunderstanding. Also happy to move on from this conversation if you don’t feel like we’re getting anywhere.

you are proposing making ATOM into the inflationary farming token.

There is no proposed farming or inflation of ATOM in this proposal. The proposal does request existing funds that are currently not being utilized, to be liquidity provided by the community pool on Duality. The community pool would have rights over all of the swap fees generated and the liquidity position.

according to Wikipedia: In finance, unsecured debt refers to any type of debt or general obligation that is not protected by a guarantor, or collateralized by a lien on specific assets of the borrower in the case of a bankruptcy or liquidation or failure to meet the terms for repayment. This is exactly what Duality is proposing.

This definition implies that Duality is a receiving credit from the community pool (and thus in debt to pay back the credit). But this is not what the proposal suggests. This proposal does propose the community pool utilizes existing funds that are not being utilized on Duality though. Duality labs will not be in debt to the Community Pool because they are not receiving custody of the funds and not taking out a loan.

[BuilderBot]

@duality

• 100% of gas fees will go to the ATOM validators and delegators

What will the searchers earn then? Or do you mean 100% - part that goes to searchers?

Also, are you using the skip protocol for mev?

[Elijah]

Good question, it meant that 100% of the value that isn’t leaked outside of the network (ie doesn’t go to searchers) will go to ATOM validators and delegators.

We are currently working with Skip on MEV although we have not announced the exact details yet (coming soon).

[BuilderBot]

No Duality token, that’s correct?
Could this change in the future?

[nicholas]

That’s correct, Duality labs won’t be launch a token and there are currently no plans to do so

[duality]

Thanks for all the positive feedback and constructive discussion points!
We’ll be putting this on-chain soon. There are still a couple of days left for final feedback

Take care everyone

[BuilderBot]

The rewards validators earn - ATOM. Will this be ATOM on ATOM or ibc ATOM?

Also, can a validator identify whether the ATOM comes from Duality or from the Hub?

[nicholas]

Duality will use IBC atom as a gas token, the source of ATOM for rewards can be identified

[waqarmmirza]

@Elijah

The Multisig is made up of the top validators on the Cosmos Hub. While it’s not perfect and we specify that we are working on better solutions, you already trust these same people when transacting on the Hub.

But in case of daily transactions we are secured by the network and software, the worst a validator can do is get me slash 5% but in the case of multisig we are 100% relying on the intent of the validator (multisig) things are not same. I won’t argue that we should have a better escrow solution in a binary. But please don’t say that the situation is the same.

@Elijah

The criteria that people vote on is whether it benefits the Hub. The case made in the proposal is that by using community pool funds to temporarily LP, the Hub benefits because it :

1. generates swap fees for the community pools (and staking fees if it’s an stATOM pair)
2. all MEV fees captured by the network accrue back to the Hub
3. the community pools still owns the funds (they are not being given to the chain)
4. would bootstrap a replicated security chain (a part of the ATOM Zone)
5. all gas fees created go to stakers and validators

Most of the validators are in loss, and the ICS is incurring more loss for validators, now situation is getting bit clear neutron is proving to be total loss for validator resources and now stride is not very different. Adding more chains on the expense of CP will not receive my favor unless we have a clear plan of support for validators.

[Elijah]

But in case of daily transactions we are secured by the network and software, the worst a validator can do is get me slash 5% but in the case of multisig we are 100% relying on the intent of the validator (multisig) things are not same. I won’t argue that we should have a better escrow solution in a binary. But please don’t say that the situation is the same.

I didn’t say they were the same, I said you already trust these same people when transacting on the Hub. This was never meant to imply that the trust assumptions are equal, just that these are the same players you normally trust.

Most of the validators are in loss, and the ICS is incurring more loss for validators, now situation is getting bit clear neutron is proving to be total loss for validator resources and now stride is not very different. Adding more chains on the expense of CP will not receive my favor unless we have a clear plan of support for validators.

We have been working on a number of solutions to reduce costs on validators. To join the working group and see what ideas are floating to the top feel free to join our telegram link

[effortcapital]

Weren’t you also a proponent of expanding the active set recently?

[waqarmmirza]

Yes.

And what does this mean?

[waqarmmirza]

Thanks for the reply again.
But very respectfully i disagree, from where I see it we are just working (not delivering) on the validator’s problem. We are trying to provide every half-cooked idea otherwise.

It is not like we don’t know the validator problems, we are aware we are working on it since last year but RS delivered neutron went live, Stride went live now we are trying to add another chain but we are still working on the validator problems. The clock is ticking here too.

The fair cost pernod is 500 USD/month neutron generates nearly 0 per month, Stride is not different and we are trying to add more chains at the expense of CP, without solving the core problems.

here is the topic where we were talking about to support the validators in April, 3 months passed by but we are still working. Scaling up with conditional basic income

[BuilderBot]

how can I differentiate ibc ATOM from Duality from ibc ATOM from Neutron?

[tom]

“we are still working on the validator problem but hey, let’s add 5 more unsustainable validators to the set”

[serejandmyself]

Do you know if there is a summary of these solutions? Its a bit hard to search inside of a telegram chat. I found a post by Jehan and pretty much it. Would be great to keep a track of these.

[tom]

They are mentioned in the “Rs reimagined” post

However yeah if it doesn’t exist, a summarizing post would be nice.

@taron

Indeed, several solution proposals have surfaced in this forum, with some, like the ‘soft opt-out’, finding their way into real-world application. Other solutions, such as providing a conditional basic income for small validators, advancing the implementation of ICS to V2 (Opt-in) or V3 (Layered) via fraud votes , managing on/offboarding of consumer chains even in M&A format , and permitting validators to define their commission rates for each consumer chain have also been tabled.

[serejandmyself]

• Basic income: sounds like a communists wet dream. Wont work. Doubt it will even get accepted. Simple reasons - it will be deemed as unfair sooner or later and imo has several other implications on the economy.
• allow com rates: great move, which should have been implemented from the start as suggested by many. Wont solve the issue. Issue for small validators today: they arent getting enough delegations. I dont see how increasing com rates will help that
• fraud votes: this is actually something that can help imo

[effortcapital]

Well…you are worried about ICS tokenomics and validators running at a loss while also advocating to expand the set to validators that would run at a loss if the soft opt-out mechanism wasn’t in place.

I guess I’m confused on why expanding the validator set made sense knowing the economic situation of ICS