Not for me, but… expanding validator sets and trying to defend the need for ICS tokenomics to be changed don’t contradict each other whatsoever. They are 2 separate issues. Not all validators join the set to make money. Believe it or not. I have been taking to validators (and been one myself since 2016 - bitshares type witness node) for 4 years. Some support networks at their own cost for years. You be surprised. Some even put their money into their projects. All because they believe in the network and align with its values. They want to do good. Hence, they want to solve the tokenmocis issue. This does not constitute for the decentralziartion values being taken away.
1 Like
Yes, this part is right.
Let’s zoom out and take a look again.
Those 5 validators were added after the prop was already incurring the same costs as the active validator. None of those 5 validtaors launched their operations around that prop they were there for quite a long time. Those 5 validators had significant voting power and they were missing on the commission and staking reward because they were inactive. now they are active they are earning on commission and staking rewards. So from my perspective now at least they are earning something earlier their earning were “0”. You have every right to disagree with my thoughts and if you do that doesn’t change the fact that validators are in financial trouble.
Now, look at the cosmos hub as a stand-alone project that should only onboard the c-chains if they are adding long-term and short-term value to cosmos HUB. in the cosmos Hub we should take care of every stakeholder and Validators are the enablers of the network. I am unable to comprehend why we pretend to work for the validators while we only want to leach the CP for individual gains.
I would say again. even if adding more validators was a mistake (I don’t agree) this doesn’t change the fact we are doing injustice with validators, by adding every useless consumer chains, we can add doesn’t mean we should add. And on the expense of CP not at all.
ah this good old empty “leach the CP for individual gains” argument
Hi guys, sorry if it’s unrelated to the thread. What is your suggestion for me to find information about AEZ? I really like to know the big vision behind it and what kind of ecosystem/platforms we need to build to make this AEZ concept a success. Thanks.
they dont have a vision yet.
AAdao hired two teams that fit their narrative rather than being the best qualified and we are waiting for them to present some grand coherent vision.
before that happens we are expected to pass spends to fund startup ICS chains with no capital of their own and at additional cost for validators without any plan.
as they aimlessly and desperately spend the community pool ATOM price adjusts down for the additional risk validators move onto delegators without compensation. this reduces the revenue potential of Stride and reduces the security able to be offered by the hub.
1 Like
Hey there, so I wanted to reply and make some comments before we go ahead and put up the proposal.
-
once the hub is on 47, can we please move any multi-sig to groups? It is vastly better.
-
before we push the button on this, can you please provide the tag of the release that you would like to put on chain and also the corresponding commit hash?
-
I have heard some concerns about excess state growth in consumer chains. I know that these concerns came from you guys but I wanted to let you know that to my knowledge all consumer chains are reporting this at this time. I don’t yet have a solution, but I have invited representatives from every consumer chain team ( @Spaydh & @aidan for example) to a signal group so we can work through it. I suppose that it probably makes sense to add somebody to that group from informal, so I will add @jtremback now also.
-
I would like to do a final check, and I should note that even if this is put on chain, if you could please just reply to this, that would enable me to do that.
Final note
Congratulations and thank you for your work. The chain looks excellent, as does the business plan. If there’s anything that you guys need please do not hesitate to reach out.
Our Thoughts and Background on the Neutron X Duality Proposal
A few weeks ago we reached out to Timewave Labs to collaborate on some product directions and research we had been working on with respect to using the Duality DEX module for treasury management. From there, we began conversations with the goal of figuring out how we could collaborate with one another.
We shared a concern with many Neutron stakeholders - our visions and goals overlapped immensely which could lead to infighting instead of working together, something that would not be beneficial to the burgeoning, but still nascent ATOM Economic Zone.
The vision we shared in our preliminary proposal on the Cosmos Hub forum has not changed in the slightest. We outlined four major goals :
- Growing the Pie : The emerging ecosystems around the Cosmos Hub and the rest of Cosmos will be in the best position to succeed if we put our energy into collaboration, not conflict.
- Liquid Staking Tokens : Liquid staking tokens will unlock an unprecedented level of capital efficiently not previously seen in Cosmos due to most value across the ecosystem being locked in staking for security.
- Unlocking On-chain Exchange : Today CEX volume dominates DEX. If FTX showed us anything it’s that this needs to change - exchange should be done on credible, verifiable venues, not on misaligned, centralized databases.
- Optimizing Interchain UX : IBC is a powerful tool for interoperability at Cosmos’ disposal. It’s a major part of what sets being a Cosmos chain apart from other stacks.
Throughout our initial conversations, the overlap in our visions become more apparent. Neutron’s alignment with those goals :
- Growing the Pie : The Neutron DAO has funded a grants program for the growth of the ATOM Economic Zone, and contributors have presented plans to bring liquidity from other ecosystems into Cosmos and strengthen public good funding in the ecosystem.
- Liquid Staking Tokens : Stride’s liquidity injection of ~$4 million ATOM into stATOM liquidity pools on Neutron and Neutron’s relationship with Lido, position them very well to expand liquid staking tokens and their use cases throughout Cosmos.
- Unlocking On-chain Exchange : The first and most popular application deployed on Neutron has been Astroport. The close partnership between the Astroport and Neutron communities, signals a strong desire to push on-chain exchange and DeFi as far as it can go.
- Optimizing Interchain UX : Neutron is improving interchain UX dramatically through the introduction and prioritization of ICAs and ICQs. They have also outlined plans to work toward improving interchain UX between Cosmos blockchains and rollups.
It was also clear that we shared many of the same beliefs on the future DeFi, DAO management and tooling, where Cosmos fits with rollups and values. After a few discussions we decided to shift focus on discussing what a closer partnership might look like and how that aligns with the vision we set out to realize.
It quickly became clear that deploying the Duality DEX module on Neutron would be push us both closer to our goals :
-
Growing the Pie :
a. Instead of spending time and energy competing for the limited liquidity and resources within
Cosmos, teaming up with Neutron will allow us to focus our efforts on bringing in new users. At the end of the day our real competition should not be other chains or rollups, it should be to bring more liquidity on-chain.b. This is a reduction of $500,000 to $1,500,000 in yearly costs for the Hub compared to if we had launched as an independent ICS chain - without removing Duality from AEZ. Capital freed means more freedom to pursue additional growth-driving endeavors.
c. The Hub and Cosmos gain upside from the growth Duality through increased transaction and MEV revenue share from Neutron, and any impact on the future value of the >40,000,000 NTRN tokens to be received by the Cosmos Hub from the Neutron airdrop (not financial advice !)
-
Liquid Staking Tokens :
a. Working competitively would fragment LST usage within the AEZ. For example, the liquidity injection in our ICS chain proposal would fragment stATOM <> ATOM liquidity within the ATOM Economic Zone, leading to worse execution for traders, more complex integrations and more expensive routing. Combining efforts improves the positioning for LST adoption within the AEZ.
b. LST liquidity managed within the Duality DEX module will become synchronously composable with other apps on Neutron, enabling rehypothecation, flash loans and more advanced strategies for Lido and Stride’s assets. This will make liquidity much easier to access and integrations more powerful.
-
Unlocking On-chain Exchange:
a. Neutron’s partnerships with Astroport, Mars, Timewave and more will be able to enhance the user experience for users of Duality leveraging synchronous composability. These partnerships and collaborations would not be immediately possible without alignment with the Neutron ecosystem.
b. Liquidity in Cosmos is still sparse and bootstrapping a successful DeFi ecosystem around ATOM and the Hub will require concentrating and optimizing the available liquidity. Deploying Duality on Neutron achieves this objective by enabling all of the liquidity in the AEZ and all of the liquidity in the various dApps on Neutron to be concentrated and made available to the entire ecosystem via a unified optimized repository, making the AEZ a prime trading venue in the ecosystem.
-
Optimizing Interchain UX :
a. Limiting liquidity fragmentation within the ATOM Economic Zones, improves execution prices and reduces latency and bridging costs.
b. Duality Labs also has experience building bridges (our co-founder and CTO was a lead developer on tBTC, the first decentralized Bitcoin bridge) and with rollups (we were the first external team to deploy a Cosmos SDK rollup on Celestia testnet). Paired with Neutron’s team and resources we will be in a great position to grow the ATOM Economic Zone’s role in improving rollup bridging as well through rollup settlement, ICAs, and ICQs on Neutron.
For those that have been wondering why we pushed the on-chain proposals and launch dates, it was because we wanted to explore this opportunity before moving forward. We feel that this is a great opportunity to continue aligning with the Hub and Cosmos, while drastically increasing our ability to ship products that people will love.
Link to the Neutron proposal:
If you have any questions or thoughts feel free to reach out on the forum or on our Twitter dms.
2 Likes
sorry but really disappointed. even if a day one fan of Neutron.
Duality should be a chain, and accrue value to Atom directly, as planned initially.
edit: but i guess i don’t see the full picture 
2 Likes
We’ll do a twitter space as soon as possible to give longer form thoughts and hear everyone’s opinions out.
Our belief is that if the proposal were to pass it would be accruing value to ATOM directly via the community pool’s share of NTRN (currently worth >$12million) and the fees and MEV share.
Instead of spending a considerable amount of time in conflict with Neutron, I think working together would also alleviate fragmentation of resources and progress within the AEZ.
Always appreciate your feedback though.
1 Like
will listen to this space of course.
for now i don’t get why being a consumer chain means automatically being in conflict. i don’t get why as a chain you couldn’t work together. not fully obviously, but it could also be cooperative.
also competition is good sometimes for innovation. more than acquisitions often.
you said many times the only way to create the product you wish was to have the ability to customize every single part of the stack. what would change now?
i’ve no strong opinion to be honest. and i believe you’re going to build great products wherever you are. rn i’m just hum, disappointed, you’ve just killed my hopes! ahah.
people have been admirative of your initial proposal, the great alignment with the hub you proposed.
i believe you’re going to need to tell us more than “let’s not fight and hey look the 12M CP, it’s ok” to keep people positive about this new plan.
anyway good luck. i hope Neutron firstly will achieve to make people actually vote and reach quorums.
ps: approximative english, my bad o/
1 Like
for now i don’t get why being a consumer chain means automatically being in conflict. i don’t get why as a chain you couldn’t work together. not fully obviously, but it could also be cooperative.
I agree it doesn’t automatically mean conflict. On a personal level, we had a great relationship with various Neutron stakeholders before the proposal was made. But from a liquidity perspective, there was certainly conflict for resources - Stride’s liquidity injection being one example. From a partnership perspective - being able to work with Astroport, Mars and Timewave as a few examples.
also competition is good sometimes for innovation. more than acquisitions often.
Agree competition is really good. But as two pre-PMF, pre-(significant)-revenue protocols, it seemed like close collaboration could be a fruitful avenue for improving our chances of building something that people love to use.
i’ve no strong opinion to be honest. and i believe you’re going to build great products wherever you are. rn i’m just hum, disappointed, you’ve just killed my hopes! ahah.
I understand this concern, but happy to prove you wrong about your hopes. I genuinely think working with Neutron will benefit everyone. It’ll reduce costs on validators, while providing us with resources and partnerships to take our directions to the next level.
people have been admirative of your initial proposal, the great alignment with the hub you proposed. i believe you’re going to need to tell us more than “let’s not fight and hey look the 12M CP, it’s ok” to keep people positive about this new plan.
Yep, I completely agree. Will share thoughts much more in depth on twitter spaces and in future posts, but we think this will help support us in our ability to build a strong product people love so I don’t want it to seem like we’re just trying to sell “hur dur the CP has NTRN”.
ps: thanks for the luck, and your english was good !
3 Likes
Of course, I and many others will feel disappointed and backstabbed. A product was promised while private discussions were going on in the background with Neutron. It feels that way because I and others don’t feel like the Hub is aligned with Neutron (mainly because Neutron isn’t specific).
Duality is a product that made so much sense for the Hub, it felt like validators would have gladly supported it (contrary to what the post on the Neutron forum implies). As it was said in you initial post, the great thing about an app chain is that it can customize itself to support all its product features, while IBC prevents it from being isolated.
Maybe it’s a money problem ? A payment is stated but it doesn’t appear in your motivations. If so, there might be another way here.
1 Like
I just want to add that if this goes through, it has a massive (negative) implication for the AEZ, imo. It means Neutron will compete with the Hub for expansion and product acquisition. Long term implications could be worse.
1 Like
Super excited about this merger. We do believe this will be net positive to the Hub. Looking forward to the Space.
More dapps, not more chains 
3 Likes
increase the 25% rewards to 100% to Atom stakers and thats fine…
hub is dying because of all your good ideas
No IBC routing in the Aez
Not CC rewards enough
closed discussions in backside
No CW permissionned on the hub
gg
why doesnt the hub just give duality the neutron it is getting after airdrop ends? 28x gains from prop72, like zaki was talking about?
Of course, I and many others will feel disappointed and backstabbed. A product was promised while private discussions were going on in the background with Neutron.
I understand how you feel and likely won’t be able to change that on my own but will continue to share my thoughts and work through potential solutions.
It feels that way because I and others don’t feel like the Hub is aligned with Neutron (mainly because Neutron isn’t specific).
Interesting… I had never considered specificity as a reason for feeling alignment / misalignment, but now that you say it makes a lot of sense. It’s basically the sentiment that - “If Neutron does everything than what’s left for the hub”. That said I think this is a solvable problem.
Perhaps a well defined vision from both the Neutron and the Hub would help a lot ? My personal opinion on the topic is that the Hub should double down on the things that it already has a competitive advantage at - “moneyness” and security. This means eventually deploying the mesh security module on the Hub, building ATOM liquidity throughout the AEZ, reducing inflation, stabilizing governance processes. Money and Security are massive markets in my opinion.
Neutron would then take a more DeFi focused route. Building towards Duality integrations, cross-chain finance via ICQs and ICAs, Astroport, Mars… Being a financial Hub in which the Hub feels it has a big stake in.
If the two could come up with better defined mission statement and Neutron reaffirmed commitment to the Hub, I would hope concerns could be alleviated drastically.
Duality is a product that made so much sense for the Hub, it felt like validators would have gladly supported it (contrary to what the post on the Neutron forum implies).
Agree. We had been expecting the Duality proposal to pass (and I believe Neutron agrees). We had actually gone around and talked to as many validators and stakeholders and we could get in touch with to hear out their concerns and work through them 
(which was not a small number of meetings).
What I will continue to be confused about is that we still see it as a product for the Hub ! The Hub is arguably the largest stakeholder in Neutron’s success - 25% of future revenue and 12% of the token supply across governance and community pool ( + ATOM is a gas token on Neutron). Also fwiw I still think there needs to be discussions on how to more closely align with the Hub - had a good conversation with @Youssef, @Spaydh and some others on how to start working towards that.
Maybe it’s a money problem ? A payment is stated but it doesn’t appear in your motivations. If so, there might be another way here.
Money is part of it. But newly minted tokens that vest over a long period of time are worthless unless the different communities around them can build something valuable. We have conviction that, that’ll be the case - especially if we can figure out how to alleviate the tension between Neutron and the Hub.
2 Likes
Neutron will compete with the Hub for expansion and product acquisition
I think this is only a problem as long as Neutron and the Hub don’t have publicly defined mission statements. In my first reply I outlined some thoughts on this. I would love for the conversation to be more about how we can find common ground between Neutron and the Hub because it feels far from doomed to me.
Also my offer still stands. I’m down to hop on a call at some point and chat synchronously because typing out long messages on the forum is really time consuming. As you can tell I respect your feedback a lot (else I wouldn’t be responding in these massive messages).
This offer to chat live also stands for anyone who is providing valid concerns, and engaging in good faith. My goal here is only to find solutions for people’s concerns and soften the disconnect between our opinions.