[PROPOSAL XX] Signaling Proposal For Cosmos hub improvement - Permissioned CosmWasm

I’m not reading all that, respectfully.

1 Like

Even if you read it, you won’t understand it. Don’t worry, I am not writing it for you.

I have a feeling that people think if you put WASM on the Hub that you will get all this Ethereum like explosion of activity. All the ETH Solidity developers would show up on ATOM and do their thing here and number will go up. That is totally misguided thinking.

  1. Cosmos WASM is not the Ethereum Virtual Machine. It is a completely different smart contract development environment and the Ethereum smart contract developers can’t easily transition to it. No one will ditch their EVM to come to CosmWasm, at least not in the desired size and volume for number to go up.
  2. The only developers that you can steal using WASM are from Solana. Except that Solana has a faster chain, bigger throughput and cheaper fees. At this point, if anybody is stealing WASM developers it is Solana stealing the Cosmos developers (or for that matter the Polkadot developers).

With Solana being the main competitor for WASM developers, putting WASM on the Hub is pointless. You are not competing against Ethereum’s high transaction fees, you are competing against Solana’s low transaction fees. Neutron showed you that clearly. I am not sure what much more needs to be proven. The people asking for WASM on the Hub have an axe to grind from 2021. It didn’t make sense then and it doesn’t make sense now.

Get over it, lads.


Respectfully, permissioned CW on the Hub doesn’t come with expected explosion od dapp activity. It comes with expectation of 100x improving Hub’s governance which is becoming one of the Hub’s main selling points as Sunny stated multiple times. Yes, no, abstain and veto are not sufficient options for thriving political economy which the Hub has the possibility of becoming more than any other Blockchain in existence today. CW makes that possible.


All that I am disagreeing with the other poster is that the permissioning process should be hard instead of easy. When you create an institution, you need to define its scope and limit its ability to operate outside of its scope. Because the people running the institution may not understand or twist and change the scope later on. One of the first thing that a newly created institution does is flex its muscles to prove who is boss and often does that in a way that pushes makes the institution operate outside of its scope. I am operating under the assumption that the moment this is approved, a whole of bunch of unknown new characters will show up and start putting up shit on the Hub that nobody here is even contemplating. I don’t assume a peaceful existence of the Hub, I am assuming political infighting and constant attacks. What we are deploying here needs to operate under challenging circumstances.

Since we are talking about governance here, defining precisely and limiting the scope of an institution (in this case the ability to provision functionality to the Hub) is of utmost importance. I understand many 25 year old folks here just wanna hack away and then put code on the Hub and then brag to their girlfriends that they are important and that is exactly the type of behavior needs to be prevented using institutional rails. The Hub is too important for this type of activity to happen on it.

“Yes, no, abstain and veto are not sufficient options for thriving political economy”

Are you saying you want to bypass the governance module for putting up permissioned code? I don’t like that one bit.

“Are you saying you want to bypass the governance module for putting up permissioned code? I don’t like that one bit.”

How and where am I saying this? I’m saying we need to upgrade gov tooling with additional options, mainly with the option to negotiate, not to replace the existing one.



Lavender.Five Nodes


ICA on the hub to manage Neutrons ?need cw ?

1 Like

Bumping this. This was recently (haphazardly) put on chain.

We should re-open the discussion and check the temperature of it.

The proposal text from IPFS sums up the most recent effort well in that Permissioned CW makes more sense than permissionless on the Hub.


Based on hub minimalism, I would have opposed it in the past, but it is true that now app chains similar to the status of hub are pouring in and hub is losing their position.
I think that if the hub continues in its current state, one day it will give up all the infrastructure it has built to competitors and go bankrupt. It is right time for change.


If this function is added, it will not affect the network speed and security. I think it will be good.

After all, an Cosmos Hub is like a child without mobility

I agree to equip him with a pair of flexible wings

It’s not about making him compete, but making him smarter and able to go further.

1 Like

Worth noting that even with a permissioned instance of CW on the Hub, that doesn’t mean “Hub minimalism” as a concept goes away. The Hub shouldn’t be bringing contracts on chain that can be abstracted elsewhere (ie. anything deFi send it to a consumer chain).

I see no scenario where the hub would want to put anything on it that is a security risk or competes with ICS chains. Instead, we should be thinking of how this could complement and serve ICS chains and the rest of Cosmos.

I personally think DAO DAO would be a great flagship implementation for the hub to improve governance tooling and interaction with DAO’s across Cosmos, but especially with consumer chains. Could also form subDAO’s underneath AADAO for accountability, or create another DAO to compete or complement it.

The point, more than anything is that it greatly increases options for developers. Any contracts that want to get on the Hub would have to go through governance, so ultimately it’s still up to the voice of the hub community what direction it can take itself.


A bit of romanticism from my side, but this proposal represents what the hub always says it’s proud of: its community.

The proposal comes from the community and is personally the reason for my first post on the forum.

We‘ve been wishing for better gov tooling for years. Now’s the chance to get it. I can honestly see no reason why we wouldn’t want this to pass, since this is not about competing with neutron. As somebody said above, let’s give the hub some wings.

Big yes.


A big yes for me, hub need to evolve

1 Like

We voted No for now. Looking more into it we might change. One thing i want to mention, It would have been better if the prop was discussed before putting on chain. The last comment on this prop is 3 months old. It needed the fresh discussion.

1 Like

We’ve discussed for years, there’s been a forum post for months with lots of dialogue and active participants.

For those who decided to not participate in the discussions, there is a 2 week voting period. Have the discussions you need to have. Plenty of time to digest information and make an informed decision.


How can we make sure that the permissioned wasm will only be used for the said purposes? I don’t think there is any way we can inforce that on a chain level. The only checks are the validators?

If this is the case, I am reluctant to say yes.

I don’t understand the question, to be honest. Obviously, everything is up for a vote, including the contracts that are deployed on it. Same as what Osmosis or any other permissioned CW chain does.

Its permissioned cw…code uploads go through governance.

The 2-4 week procedural forum discussions as well as the 2 week voting period is the answer.


The fork that comes sanctions an opinion.
I think this is a childish and irresponsible approach to governance.
(I’m obviously excluded, but that’s not the cause of my anger^^)
I have been voting systematically for more than two years, on the hub, but also on all the channels in the ecosystem, because I KNOW that it is more important than the size of our wallets.
Governance is the keystone of this technology.
You can code whatever you want, just as accountants are not, and never will be, business leaders, it is not in the devs, however smart or minimalist their code may be, that resilience and strategic force are.
Solid governance could have emerged from the hub over time, but this is not the case.
For me, it is therefore time to take the plunge, raise the stakes, and put some more complex code back where it belongs: in governance.
In the futur we should be able to code our governance, this is the next step, and thus take our place alongside the consensus of Bitcoin and Ethereum.
Or you might as well sell your Atoms to buy Dot :slight_smile:
All my savings are in cryptos, and 80% of my cryptos are in IBC.
It’s not a question of money: it’s a political choice.
I have responsibilities in an anti-corruption association, I took strategy courses at the war school, I participated in the fight against climate change: everywhere, every time, it is governance which is the origin and/or the solution.
So at the risk of being punished (again) for my vote:
It’s yes, ready or not ready, happy or not, for me it is necessary to do it, being fully aware of the work that it will require, and that the tranquility of a token barely more volatile than DAI, this will be a thing of the past^^
And the risk is not so great in the face of the mass of positive indirect consequences.
The strategist advances in the fog of war by twisting the present and the future to put them at the service of his imagination, he creates his own narrative, feeds his position with indirect effects, and constrains, if necessary, the opposing narratives.
The hub, without putting itself in danger, should become the place where strategists can be born and grow: a governance laboratory.
And that requires to open the CosmWasm door.