Here are a few thoughts we have regarding the ideas shared above:
We are fully aligned with that statement. The Hub has pioneered shared security with a significant head-start. Now that competition is about to hit the market, we already have pioneered innovation beyond economic security sharing, as we now share a cooperative framework within ICS (InterChain Security). The forthcoming arrival of Partial Set Security (PSS) will be the more flexible option without this additional flavor.
This isn’t that simple as to assume profit and loss. One should see this as a mutual financial agreement doubled by a strong tool in the decentralization theme. We can also imagine that Neutron could enable special voting options for the vaulted tokens, allowing governance to be attached to them. This is the kind of services that largely compensate the impermanent loss risk. Most people largely underestimate the importance that decentralization & governance has.
This sounds like a no-brainer and should be the de-facto choice for all consumer chains as well.
This is something we have discussed many times with @Youssef and the AADAO. There should be more of these joint programs in the future. We expect them to grow even further as new partners eventually join the AEZ in the future. We often take this example: every new partner in the group grows the number of potential agreements by 2^n where (n) is the number of total participants.
To conclude, this post further demonstrate the strong alignment there is between the Hub and Neutron. It has existed for quite some time already but it seems like this is only getting stronger, as evidence to this new post by @Spaydh. Creating cooperation around the Hub is in stark constrast to the rest of the crypto industry which is mostly trying to “sell a token” and “grow the pie” which ultimately ends up fragmenting the ecosystems further and further. We are among those who believe that cooperation is the key to advance further in the public blockchain world.
Thanks for reading,
Govmos
