Totally agree with you.
Plus, who is the team behind Aether? Resume?
2 Likes
Spotted a typo, DyDx.
âWhether you look at DxDy or many upcoming Cosmos chains, all of them have favorable interest in the Cosmos and the underlying strategy.â
1 Like
Anon team, Banking on EVM just magically bringing products and users, potentially launching with a subpar techstack without license, running a techstack that is incredibly unstable for validators and eats resources like a madman, Timing means it will be directly competing with Berachain, the shared revenue is basically 0 - even if adoption picks up, Ethermint doesnt have complete GMP style IBC making Aether non-composable with the rest of the AEZ, little information about the actual primitives that are launching and who will be maintaining them, no strong story to attract liquidity and users, overemphasizing on a community airdrop while the only party who will bear costs for this chain are validators, a lot of text, no true technical details or answers and most of all no direct need for 2 billion in security.
Maybe a deep dive into the team behind this and a technical document about overcoming Ethermint (IBC) issues will change my mind but for now this proposal is a clear No for us.
Best regards,
Ertemann - Lavender.Five Nodes
5 Likes
I second the interest in learning who the team behind the project is. Could you let us all know? Thanks!
1 Like
A bit bizarre how they donât respond to anything in here or their Telegram chat. About all I see from them right now is posting AI pixel images on their Twitter and talking about an airdrop and the things it will have when itâs a consumer chain.
Red flags, imo, unless they become more professional and try to engage.
1 Like
^ this
We need more transparent information on the team involved with this project.
Iâll be that guy [flame suit on]âŚ
Do we not already have enough EVM compatible chains?
If not within Cosmos, outside of Cosmos?
Would it not be more forward looking to support a VM that is growing versus losing market share this cycle (2024 cycle) and next cycle (2028 cycle) approaching 2030?
^ This is a fact, I am not going to argue this with anyone. Ethereum will lose market share to many other L1s this cycle and next cycle. Why?
- High Gas Fees
- Extra Steps Bridging Assets
- Staking Centralization
- Security Flaws (other blockchains have these too)
- Mainstream VC darling Solana is knocking on itâs front door.
I know this is a proposal to become a consumer chain (out of scope and slightly off topic of this thread), but believe some people were thinking it and just not saying it. I canât sit here and say if this were an SVM compatible chain it would be any better of an idea. For me, Solana would need to go through at least all of 2024 without halting their chain/going down.
Outside of trying to become a consumer chain, why should we care about Aether over any other EVM compatible chains already available in the Cosmos Ecosystem that havenât gained much traction?
If anyone wants to add any positivity to my doom and gloom post, please do.
4 Likes
You are not the only one. There is a million other reasons to lower the priorities of those type of props 1 year down the line IMO
Quite understandable
I appreciate the effort that was put into aligning Aether with Atom, but a hard no on this proposal is entirely justified. The world does not need another EVM compatible chain, especially one that canât compete with Sei.
Re consumer chains in general, we (validators/Cosmonauts) need a way to tally how the big validators intend to participate in new chains. Thereâs significant work in spinning-up a validator and its sentry nodes and all that work would be moot if the big validators simply donât validate the new consumer chain.
1 Like
With WASM on Neutron vs WASM on Solana and EVM on Aether vs EVM on Avalanche, ATOMâs track record of running headlong straight into a buzz saw remains unbeaten!
I donât think you are gonna win EVM business from Emin Gun Sirer or WASM business from Yakovenko. Doesnât hurt to try but the odds are HEAVILY against you.
1 Like
How is it that the chain will be launched soon in testnet on ICS without a governance proposal and approval? Your communication already states that the launch is on 17 January.
2 Likes
Rehearsing on testnet before governance is ideal â gives everyone more context and confidence in their code before deciding what happens on mainnet.
2 Likes
I would propose that Aether be launched as an Opt-in consumer chain.
I see that a lot of people in this thread are still in the mindset of Replicated Security, and thatâs understandable. But with the next update to ICS, it will be possible for consumer chains to be launched that are optional for validators to run.
In this case, nobody needs to worry about whether itâs âworth itâ. Let validators decide if they want to run it or not.
8 Likes
how do they decide ? whispering ? governance ?
Totally agree here. This would be a great opportunity to showcase the opt-in feature in and new developments with ICS.
This would also be an easier route for Aether, and if needed they can eventually evolve into the n+ mechanism youâve described.
Seeing as they have their testnet upcoming, they would be able to let enough validators know theyâre launching and have a good start at getting a portion of the active set to support their launch.
2 Likes
any timeline on the next update of ICS? Pretty excited about this.
Hey everybody, till now we have been extremely busy with the validator testnet and the upcoming user testnet while preparing for launch.
But from now on we will make sure to reply to any question posted here, many people advised us to do so, as the Cosmos hub forum is the core of the governance debate.
1 Like