tensions between neutron and the hub can be reduced by increasing from 25% to min 75% the rewards to atom stakeholders
Even 75% wouldn’t matter at this point with how little is happening on Neutron in terms of transactions and MEV. Many things are on the way already and various hackathons are incentivizing teams to build within AEZ/Neutron, so revenue will improve over time. Until then, numbers are pretty unreliable.
1 Like
I think you are right. Neutron requested a clear definition of cosmwasm on the Hub, the same should apply to them. We can’t have them gatekeep what should happen with the AEZ.
I agree. And I think of the community pool funds as a holdover - compensation to the Hub, so they continue to retain considerable value before Neutron has the opportunity to hit critical mass.
We also need to acknowledge that there is a tension between two things :
- In order for the Hub’s 25% of fees to becoming meaningful
- Not wanting Neutron to grow too big or have too large of a scope
In order for the 25% of revenue to become meaningful, the Hub needs to support, or even just allow Neutron to thrive in the first place.
To the people concerned that Neutron will get big and just leave, I can’t speak for Neutron, but I think this will only ever be true if it’s manifested through ill will between the two communities. Every Neutron person I’ve met acknowledges the immense cultural and monetary value that the Hub and ATOM has played in the growth of Cosmo It would be negative sum for either protocol to diverge.
Yep. Pie needs to be grown before we determine exactly how much of it is fair tbh. There is no real economy or liquidity in the “AEZ” yet, so need to stick to the plan and re-invest in those who are taking the leap to create something.
It’s all for nothing if we don’t bring in the users, devs, liquidity, etc. though, so hopefully that’s what we’ll see in the next 6 months. Right now things feel a little grim and mis-aligned while we experiment with all of this.
1 Like
betrayals happen every day and that’s nothing new… personally, I find no use for the hub if the rug is pulled from under it. When neutron wants to leave AEZ it will be too late to recover Duality which was reserved for him.
and the Minimalism of the hub … lol an aberration I do not understand why the commu or some big bags are so reluctant on the evolution of the hub while security alone will make the hub obsolete. The hub can very well evolve without compromising its security.
When neutron wants to leave AEZ it will be too late to recover Duality which was reserved for him.
I don’t think anything Neutron has done signals they will ever want to leave the AEZ. The Hub is a major stakeholder.
and the Minimalism of the hub … lol an aberration I do not understand why the commu or some big bags are so reluctant on the evolution of the hub while security alone will make the hub obsolete
I don’t think I’m advocating for Hub minimalism. I’m advocating for the Hub to focus on the adoption of ATOM, the development of interchain security networks, and the growth of the ATOM economic zone. These three things are not minimal imo.
i propose
- neutron & duality merge
- atom & stride merge
- Elijah Cosmos CEO
1 Like
The first two actually seem like good ideas, but the third not so much 
“We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code”
1 Like
I’ll try to put things as simply as I can:
1-NEUTRON would gain from having a duality module in their chain
2-STRIDE would gain from having a duality module in their chain
3-POLYMER would gain from having a duality module in their chain
…
We should ask ourselves: does ICSv1 need a DEX app-chain ?
It might sound stupid, but think of it… this is the real question.
is the AMM a core module like the bank, auth, staking, slashing, governance, etc… or is it a custom module ?
Cause the app-chain thesis for public chains is about using core modules and to build a custom module which is the best at doing what it does. Then use IBC to interact with other custom modules on other chains which themselves are the best at doing what they do.
I generally tend to say that chains that try to cumulate multiple custom modules are deemed to die or split. Die because others will be more efficient, being focused on one thing, when the other has two. Or split because the teams working on the different modules will end up having different political visions for their respective modules.
So another question to ask is this: is this a one way trip for duality into neutron or do you envision a possibility to split to your own chain later, and if so, wouldn’t that be destructive for both of you ? This question matters a lot imho.
1 Like
Trying to understand what merging the duality into neutron would represent I decided to use my favorite Cosmos model. Using the ancient city structure as an analogy for the Cosmos network architecture.
Of course, here we replace citizens by data structures. This model has been detailed in a much more comprehensive manner in the forthcoming report we will release soon.
With the help of this model, we can easily see the ICSv1 security layer, in the city center, covering the core public infrastructure. I always saw Duality as the smaller market (1) which is right in the center of the city. Cornered by merchants (2) which would compare to LPs (those holding the merchandise traded on public markets… data & tokens) and the temple (4) where public politics happen. People don’t see it today but… the temple is stride bc liquid staked tokens will carry a lot of governance powers in the near future. holding significant shares of voting rights in many projects all across the city.
With that analogy in mind, there is the need for an individual market in the center of these… one that deals with the nearby districts we just mentioned. One that differs from the general public market on the right which would be Osmosis.
For these reasons I think there will be a public DEX chain in the ICSv1 which will offer trade for the aforementioned central public infrastructure surrounding it. Of course this is just a model… but we can learn a lot from the past… if cities organized like this in the past there were reasons for this. According to the model, it would make no sense to have the city market inside the administration building.
1 Like