Reading the OP, the thing that gets glossed over in most Cosmos discussions about Tokenomics Update: One Quarter of On-chain data is the heterogeneity between zones. The IBC numbers and the staking-ratio numbers are usually aggregated across all hub-connected chains, which papers over the fact that the median zone has a totally different fee-market, validator-set, and slashing-history than the Hub. So when someone proposes a parameter change “for Cosmos”, in practice the impact is concentrated on whichever subset of zones run a custom ICS or a custom fee-token.
From an applied-stats angle, the empirically interesting question is how correlated validator slashing events are across zones once shared-security and ICS-v2 are widespread. The early data from Neutron and Stride is small-sample, but the correlation already looks higher than the naive independence assumption would predict — same operator, same uptime issues, same client-version bug. If the proposal here doesn’t account for that correlation explicitly, the tail risk on the consumer chain is going to be worse than the per-validator-slashing-rate math suggests.
One concrete thing I’d want before this goes to vote: a sensitivity table showing the impact on staking-yield distribution under a 1-sigma vs 3-sigma slash event, conditional on the proposed parameter. The aggregate-yield number is easy to cherry-pick; the distribution tail is where the LP-side decisions actually get made. Happy to help model that if there’s appetite.