Why do we need a constitution?

Conversation Essays
1

Preamble :

First of all, I think it’s important to introduce myself so that you can understand both why I take this point of view and what potential biases I might have as I write this text. I am currently a third-year public law student in France, where I mainly study state organization, international relations, and constitutional law. I am also passionate about understanding blockchain systems, and for the past few years, I have been particularly involved in studying the Cosmos Hub. I have built a solid foundation for analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the new Cosmos Hub models, especially with projects like Hydro, Forge, and the various levels of the PSS that form ICS. On the same topic as what we will discuss today, I have developed an idea that I continue to refine privately, and an older version is available on the cosmos hub forum. I believe this information will give you an idea of the legitimacy I have, but also my limitations, in addressing the topics to follow. That said, I am not the focus of this post, so let’s get back to the topic at hand!

Introduction:

The purpose of this introduction is to demonstrate that the Cosmos Hub stands out from other blockchains. Why? In my view, it’s not a matter of technology or speed. The Hub positions itself within its ecosystem as a state-like governance framework in the broader world of IBC. It is one of the first forms of political organization within this larger ecosystem. This idea is reinforced by the Hub’s open governance (perhaps too open?). While other IBC blockchains also have a governance module, the Hub uses it in a relatively neutral manner, allowing political actors to express their vision to optimize, reduce, or regulate the future free market of the PSS.

From an economic perspective, a state provides private entities with a legal, administrative, and regulatory framework for conducting their business in a defined territory. The Cosmos Hub offers the same with ICS and its derivatives. For instance, if a service wishes to use this territory for a purpose of public interest, it can partially align with the Hub by using a PSS Top N chain. Conversely, if the service is purely private and profit-oriented, it can opt for a more flexible form of PSS, choosing its validation partners via Opt-in. It is important to note here that validators occupy a central role in this system, managing both public infrastructure and private actors. This duality, unique to the Hub, deserves further exploration. Ultimately, it’s easy to draw a parallel between the Cosmos Hub and the functioning of modern states. This point, though only briefly touched on here, could be the subject of an entire thesis.

It is important to understand that as the Hub increasingly resembles a state, it may require a structure close to a formal state organization.

Let’s now focus on the issue at hand: Why does the Cosmos Hub need a constitution?

Historically, state constitutions have often had two objectives: on the one hand, to organize the legal framework by defining the regime of laws, the powers of the government, and the judiciary; and on the other hand, to protect fundamental rights derived from natural law and guaranteed by the constitution.

I: A Constitution for the Hub’s Organization

Here, it is necessary to first study the content of state constitutions regarding their institutions (A) before applying it to the Cosmos Hub (B).

A: The Foundations of State Institutions in a Constitution

A constitution’s primary objective is to define the role of the various institutional bodies that hold the powers of the state. It thus delineates the legislative, executive, and judicial powers. This division of powers is classically associated with the system of “checks and balances,” aimed at limiting the concentration of power in a single body. If you wish to delve deeper into this topic, I recommend the works of Montesquieu and John Locke. Moreover, the constitution provides for the procedures for revising the text and constitutional review, with a jurisdiction capable of declaring a law or government act unconstitutional. A good example is the French Constitutional Council, which prevents the intrusion of law into the executive’s competencies, and vice versa (Articles 34 and 37 of the French Constitution).

Now that the usefulness of a constitution in terms of institutions is understood in theory, let’s see how these principles can be applied to the Cosmos Hub.

B: Application to the Cosmos Hub

The Cosmos Hub already has, although informally, a division of powers. The current governance can be considered the legislative power, while initiatives like Informal or AADAO play an executive role, offering services directly to governance. These entities can be compared to ministries, with specific objectives legitimized by governance. As for the judiciary branch, it is more difficult to identify. Nevertheless, open-source code and the inherent transparency of blockchain guarantee, in principle, the impartiality of transactions. However, certain mechanisms, such as the ability of validators to vote on behalf of those who do not vote, raise questions. Is this necessary? I’ll let you think about it. Similarly, it may be time to formalize the powers of each influential entity within the Hub through a constitution, clarifying their roles and respective checks.

Having studied the need for a constitution for the institutional organization of the Hub, we must now examine another essential aspect: the protection of fundamental rights.

II: Fundamental Rights, Inviolable Principles

To address this issue, we must first study fundamental rights in state constitutions (A) before drawing parallels with the Cosmos Hub (B).

A: Fundamental Rights in Constitutions

Many states enshrine fundamental rights in their constitutions. The definition of these rights can be complex, as some rights sometimes conflict with one another. According to my personal view, fundamental rights arise from a natural logic broadly accepted by the population. Once enshrined in the constitution, these rights enjoy superior protection, preventing the legislature from challenging them. Among the most well-known universal principles are human dignity, freedom of expression, and freedom to conduct business. To explore this topic further, I encourage you to read constitutions like that of Germany, which is an excellent example.

But what is the link between these fundamental rights and the Cosmos Hub? This is what I will attempt to clarify in the following section.

B: The Cosmos Hub and the Need for a Guiding Principle

If, for a state, the constitution is guided by fundamental rights derived from natural law, the Cosmos Hub must also have its own guiding principle. With the advent of ICS and PSS, the Hub is beginning to take on a fundamental, almost natural role, based on validation for others and the management of clear public service. The Cosmos Hub must maintain the competitiveness of its set of validators and ensure free competition while preserving decentralization. Concepts such as “decentralization” and “free competition” should be included in the constitution I propose. Additionally, these rights should be protected by a constitutional review of the acts adopted by the Hub’s institutions.

Conclusion:

With the arrival of PSS, Forge, Hydro, and new services, as well as Informal’s departure, the Cosmos Hub, in my view, needs to establish its first constitution. This would allow it to organize its future institutions while also setting a clear guiding principle. The protection of validators’ and stakers’ rights currently relies on simple governance, without a clear separation of powers and without a formal text defining the limits of each entity. It is now necessary to work on drafting a constitution that could be written by a constituent assembly. My role ends here, but I am convinced that the creation of strong institutions would help the Hub maintain a relative and controlled “democracy” while reinforcing trust and security for future consumer chains.

Thank you for your attention!
(the original French post is available here)

8 Likes
2

I agree with you

It is a good idea to have a constitution for the hub

3 Likes
3

I second the comment above.

Through time, the support and inevitable need for a constitution, especially with how things continue moving forward, becomes painfully more apparent. Thank you for reinitiating this topic.

3 Likes
4

Perhaps a constitution would protect delegators and validators who play by the rules from dishonesty, like Melea claiming to be 0% commission and using NO FEE in their moniker to deceive delegators. Please comment on the forum post: Urgent Concern: Melea Validator's Misleading 0% Commission Claim

2 Likes
5

You raise an important point. Validators in the Cosmos ecosystem generally hold significant power due to the need for a limited number of operators to achieve proper block finality in Tendermint. This power has been somewhat restricted through delegated proof of stake, which shifts part of the decision-making power to stakers rather than validators. This is where the governance system originated, although it hasn’t seen much improvement, despite being our only means of countering centralization in validation which is inherent in cometBFT.

The Cosmos Hub is the ideal environment to establish a constitution and state like organization built around this constitution. I strongly believe that embedding a validator’s obligation to follow governance decisions, such as implementing the mandatory 5% fee, into the constitution would provide a real safeguard. This obligation should be clearly documented and carry penalties for non-compliance which may be a “human decision” like a marketing campaign that would not go in the direction of governance choices as for 0% validators who have implemented the code but sell it otherwise.

It is, in my view, the role of the governance from a broad perspective to deal with these cases external to the code, I think you have here a very good example of the boundaries between what can be imposed with the code and what cannot be imposed with the code and which requires human judgment.

1 Like
6

Melea charges 5% like all other validators. Its hard coded in, but he does not rebate delegators and return the commission as he advertises. He is lying and stealing. That is issue #1. We have no problem with validators offering incentives. We have a major problem with dishonesty and theft that reflects negatively on all other Hub validators.

He should be properly exposed and penalized.

Issue #2 is Melea’s on-chain moniker “NO FEE” and “FREE Validator service at 0% Commission.” Monikers we believe should be Validator name only and not available as an advertising platform. Marketing campaigns should be totally separate.

Screenshot_20241103_122159_Brave
Screenshot_20241103_122159_Brave1080×2400 223 KB

Here are our ideas for a penalty.

1 Like
7

Absolutely, yes. We have long advocated for this initiative and are fully committed to actively participating in the coordination efforts for a Cosmos Hub Constitution. We believe there are valuable lessons to be drawn from the AtomOne constitutional process, to which we have also been active contributors.

It’s worth acknowledging that the path forward for the Hub may take longer, given its inherently more decentralized ecosystem compared to AtomOne. However, we’re confident that we can draw substantial inspiration from the progress made there, laying the groundwork for our own foundational framework.
pro-delegators-sign

4 Likes
8

Atom One is indeed an excellent first example of constitution. I share your opinion, the writing of this constitution will require more effort and time, especially because of the effective decentralization of the hub, but also if we want to deepen the constitutional process to lead to the creation of institutions.

The next step, I think, would be to establish a constituent assembly to draft that constitution. For the moment, it would be wise to collect different points of view, especially those who are reluctant to this initiative.

Thanks for the feedback!

1 Like
9

Thanks @Quentin, great work! It really feels like a law dissertation from university. So good reminder :innocent:.

You’re absolutely right—decentralization, like art, can’t exist without rules.

What’s your take on the “Cosmos Kelsen Pyramid”?

image
image828×577 77.5 KB

Kelsen Pyramide

@AtlasStaking raised important issues about validator fee.

Do you think this should be addressed in the constitution or through a lower-tier norm?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

2 Likes
10

I am glad to know that you have knowledge about the Kelsen pyramid. For my part, it is a process that takes place naturally in my mind, it constitutes an indisputable basis of the hierarchy of norms that we must understand for this topic.

In principle, any constitutionalist will tell you a similar thing: the norms must be prioritized according to two parameters. On the one hand, their generality, that is to say their scope: the more general a norm is, the higher it is in this pyramid. On the other hand, their applicability or precision: the more precise a norm is and produces direct legal effects for individuals, the lower it is in the pyramid.

To sum up, without taking into account international law which occupies a particular place in this hierarchy, the Constitution must contain rules of general order, often almost ideological, while being imprecise to allow the law to specify their content.

Going back to our case, if we were to determine whether the problem of 0 fees validators should be integrated into a constitutional standard, it is necessary first to analyze the obligation that we want to create, from general to specific. I see that a general principle can be deduced here: the good faith of validators, who must not deceive their delegators or consumer chains. This part, being general and imprecise, naturally finds its place in a constitution. However, the application of this principle must be reserved to the law. For example, a law could specify that a validator must not use his name for commercial purposes or may not include smileys in his name. It is also the law that will define sanctions in case of non-compliance.

It is crucial to understand that this division of standards allows for modularity in governance choices. On the one hand, the constitution generally guides the direction of decisions, while legislators define the concrete and applicable framework, according to the needs and developments in the context. In other words, the constitution is long-term because it is broad and, above all, specified by law, which gives it a great capacity for adaptation.

However, while this division of norms seems extremely effective, it is essential to limit the scope of the law: the constitution must be protected and interpreted by a constitutional council. Laws that do not comply with the framework set by the constitution must be censured by this council.

Thank you for the feedback! It is with questions and the mixture of points of view that we can build together a constitution of safe value for any participant in the network and so do not hesitate to ask or participate, this is only the beginning.

3 Likes
11

Update on this topic:

For anyone interested in continuing the work on the constitution, I have set up a Discord server where we can collaborate and discuss the best ways to design a constitution. You’ll also find my work on potential institutions there. We will continue to use the Cosmos Hub forum to share major updates on our progress. Join us and let’s debate together!

2 Likes
12

The invite link appears to be expired or invalid. Please update your previous post with a refreshed version!

1 Like
13

it’s done, it should work this time.

14

Thank you for setting up a discord server to discuss this, @Quentin.

As an option for those who would rather openly discourse on this forum, and instead of “recreating the wheel,” can we collectively agree on this model as the Preamble?

1
Preamble
We, the people of the Cosmos, in order to create a free world, enable voluntary and borderless transactions, facilitate permissionless innovation, ensure economic security, resist censorship, cater to economic and technological development, allow for the creation of sovereign zones, and maintain order among sovereign zones, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the AtomOne Hub.

Source: genesis/CONSTITUTION.md at main · atomone-hub/genesis · GitHub

1 Like
15

Hey, thank you for participating,

The preamble of a constitution should not only represent the will of the constituents but also, more broadly, the values that the stakers wish to uphold. In my view, the Atom One constitution no longer represents the current Cosmos Hub. Atom has taken a much less conservative path compared to Atom One. Therefore, adopting their preamble as it stands does not seem relevant, as it no longer reflects the current reality of the hub (as evidenced by this proposal, which significantly departs from Atom One’s conservative vision).
However, I also admit that this preamble is sufficiently broad and inclusive.

That being said, I am in no position to accept or reject a preamble or constitution proposal. This decision lies with the community.

For this reason, even though I am working in my free time on a complex constitution tailored to the hub’s specific needs, the primary goal of this discussion is to emphasize the necessity of establishing a constitution and also to think of how we can do that. This involves not only reforming governance but also defining a process for creating a constitution that genuinely represents the chain’s actual needs and is developed in a decentralized manner.

To draft a constitution in a decentralized way and ensure a sufficient diversity of perspectives, it would be relevant to form multiple teams of wise constituents, each proposing their own vision of governance reform. Atom One could, in my view, be part of these teams, allowing them to present a revised version of their constitution that aligns with the current values of the hub.

4 Likes
16

Thanks for your effort @Quentin.

I for one am not for a written constitution. I feel this would create more friction going forward (this Family Guy clip comes to mind, ofc an exaggerated example), and generally speaking, I feel that the social consensus → onchain gov approval process we have now is fine.

A constitution, IMO, will only slow down growth.

But, I’m not wordsmith nor a constitutional expert, and I can see more knowledgeable people than I already voicing support here (hola at @jacobgadikian and @Govmos), so perhaps there is merit in this.

1 Like
17

A constitution provides a clear, commonly agreed-upon baseline to establish essential rules and definitions that the entire community can collectively align with. Importantly, a well-constructed constitutional framework should be ratified by governance and require a supermajority vote with a substantial quorum to ensure its legitimacy.

It is essential to clarify that such a constitution is not intended to slow growth but to facilitate it by removing ambiguity. Its primary goals are to:

  1. Define clear boundaries and acceptable practices.
  2. Provide precise definitions for key technical terms, avoiding misuse or misinterpretation of network properties.

These objectives ensure transparency and reliability without introducing unnecessary philosophical complexity. On this point, we draw valuable lessons from the GovGen chain’s constitutional process, particularly its structured approach to rules and definitions. For the Cosmos Hub, we advocate for a narrower scope—focused on clarity and utility—while taking inspiration from the exceptional groundwork established there.

We are open to further discussions on alternative goals, but firmly believe this approach brings a net benefit to the ecosystem.

Thank you for reading,
Govmos.
pro-delegators-sign

2 Likes
18

I really like your example, and it’s true! As soon as we enter the world of words, interpretation takes over. For instance, I considered setting decentralization as a guiding principle, but without precision, it would be difficult to determine whether it refers to decentralization of consensus, produced by validators, or decentralization of capital. In other words, if a proposal aimed to reduce the validator set, some might see it as a breach of the constitution, while others would not.

Even in the absence of ambiguity in the constitution or definitions like @Govmos said, some principles may sometimes contradict one another. Here’s an example (perhaps not the best one): imagine two guiding principles, decentralization and interconnectivity through instant finality. If a law proposed decentralizing the validator set beyond 1,000 validators, it would rely on the constitutional principle of decentralization. Yet, such a measure would result in a drastic reduction in interconnectivity, which is also a constitutional principle.

This is precisely why a constitutional judge is necessary. Their role would be to hold the legislature accountable when a measure fails to align with the overall logic of the constitutional framework. This relies on what is known as proportionality control. Once words are needed to define an idea, interpretation becomes an essential part of any governance ecosystem.

That said, the judge would only intervene in cases of real doubt. In the absence of any debate about the constitutionality of a law, the governance process would actually be more efficient, thanks to the institutions enabled by that same constitution. I am specifically referring to the centralization of proposal initiatives, delegated to an elected assembly chosen by stakers. This assembly would have the role of coordinating various initiatives.

In my vision of the constitution, it would work as follows: every year, an assembly is elected, and a government is appointed and organized by this same assembly, with a clear roadmap. For example, entities like Interchain Inc. or Hypha could be delegated regulatory powers on the hub during their term, with well-defined boundaries. Any entity wishing to develop on the hub would need to go through this presentation process before the assembly, which would ensure coordination of all development efforts.

To conclude, a well-designed constitution, combining guiding principles and institutions legitimized by stakers, would significantly improve the security, the efficiency and coordination of the hub. The recentralization of initiative and clearly defined regulatory powers would provide a broad scope of action, while remaining legitimized by annual elections.

  • A consensual measure, which sparks no debate, would pass quickly with efficiency comparable to that of a company.
  • On the other hand, a bolder measure would naturally provoke discussions within the assembly and might even be brought before the constitutional judge, slowing down the process and fostering in-depth debate.

I fully understand that a system based on the interpretation of words can be difficult for a developer (or any technical role) to accept, as they are accustomed to coding systems that react in a binary, nuance-free way. However, as soon as a system of choices and therefore governance is embedded in the code, the interpretation of words or decisions becomes, like the code itself, an essential component that must be optimized. I hope I’ve convinced you! :blush:

2 Likes