giunatale
commented
8 months ago a lot of good points, and some things I would disagree with. In general I suggest you should break down what you wrote in more bite-sized issues so it's more manageable. In any case, here are my comments.
What was wrong about prop 72? The intention was to fund promising ICS projects. In what way voting against it aligns with the AtomOne vision? I was also advocating for considering prop 69 and prop 82 as well, as well as others. But probably 69 - while it goes agains hub minimalism and for this reason perfectly aligns with the vision so it should be counted - it's "tainted" by the GNOT airdrop and if counted might create criticism.
We are discussing airdrop distribution in #12 I invite you to express your ideas there. You will find a lot of what you are saying is also shared by others.
Staking Limits: Set maximum limits on the amount of tokens that can be staked with a single validator or other mechanisms for better decentralation
if we force validators to disclose identity and in this way prevent sybil validators, this can make sense. In general, I think it's an important discussion to be had "can we change staking so that we increase the nakamoto coefficient". It deserves an issue by itself imho.
Exclude the validators with yes votes at least for the Cosmos hub proposals
The genesis validator selection will definitely be mindful of this. But moving forward validating the chain should be permissionless, as for any other Cosmos chain. But I don't disagree with this.
I suggest for sub 5,000 Atom stakeholders some kind of multilpliers that the distribution would be more equal and decentralized right from the beginning. Multipliers could consist from e.g. Atom-One contributions, Cosmos hub-4 voting history, Cosmos loyalty; staking duration since Cosmos hub-4 launch etc.
Maybe, but I am a bit hesitant, please suggest this in #12, see what others think.
COverS8
ADOPT EVERYTHING WHICH WORKED WITH THE COSMOS HUB AND FIX EVERYTHING WHICH FAILED
Governance
The Cosmos hub validator set consists of 180 validators, but 60% of the voting power holds the top 20 validators
Staking Limits: Set maximum limits on the amount of tokens that can be staked with a single validator or other mechanisms for better decentralation
We believe in privacy, but for security, validators should disclose their identity so they can be held responsible from any malicious or bad acts
Validators who wants to participate from the Cosmos hub set to validating Atom-one, the voting history (Cosmos hub-4) should be taken into account according to the principles of hub minimalism and the original Cosmos vision so that the main idea of the Atom-one fork is not invalidated. Exclude the validators with yes votes at least for the Cosmos hub proposals
69
Include CosmWasm in Rho Upgrade
82
ATOM 2.0: A new vision for Cosmos Hub
848
ATOM Halving: Set the max. Inflation Rate to 10%
Exclude VaaS validators. VaaS stands for “Validator as a Service”, another term is white label solution. VaaS providers allow users to participate in the network without having to set up and maintain their own validator node. The owner address mnemonic (seed phrase) is used to activate a node, participate in governance, and manage the node. It is not uncommon for services in the VaaS industry to have access to this mnemonic. Some services may even refuse to provide this key to the customer upon request. This kind of validators private keys could be exposed/managed by the service providers and thereof are high risk and should not be included to Atom-One validator set
Threshold for governance participation. There is evidences of manipulations on Yes votes at least with the proposals #82 (ATOM 2.0) and latest with the proposal #848 (ATOM Halving)
Case study of proposal #848 from Kintsugi Tech which shows that 160,379 dust or bots accounts voted for Yes Link
CEX and Institutional validators, Cosmos hub has proved that this kind of validators have had zero contributions and governance participation so they have other interests to validate and should not be included
Validators should participate in governance and vote for every proposal. Non-participation should be slashed
Do we need Abstain and Weighted vote choices? Validators should not be able game their voting choices because of the fear of undelegations and trying to avoid this with controversial proposals. Thereof would be better to have just Yes, No, NWV votes
Should there be only one time option to change the vote from a. to b. with Yes and No votes in the voting period? NWV should always remain available for voting without restrictions incase anything malicious appears during the voting period which should get rejected
AIRDROP
Snapshot from Cosmos hub-4 version from proposal #848 backwards (proposal end-time 11/25/2023 21:00 UTC) which initiated the Atom-One fork
Exclude all the Yes voters at least for the following proposals which endanger the original Cosmos vision and hub minimalism
69
Include CosmWasm in Rho Upgrade
82
ATOM 2.0: A new vision for Cosmos Hub
848
ATOM Halving: Set the max. Inflation Rate to 10%
Whale and bottom (dust, bot accounts) cap
Prevention of gaming the Airdrop from multiple accounts
By the mintscan explorer
List of the top 1,000 accounts with the highest holdings of ATOM is between 19.98M-26K Atom
1,634,664 accounts majority holds 0.. to 26,000 Atom
1:1 distribution wouldn't be fair in nowadays anymore because the Cosmos early contributors holds significantly more Atom than the later comers because of the Atom higher price in fiat which prevented acquiring a larger amount of Atom financially. That doesn't mean that the later smaller holders wouldn't be one of the most enthusiastic cosmonauts and would be wrong that their skin in the game would continue to be low with Atom-One hub too like in the Cosmos hub. So I suggest for sub 5,000 Atom stakeholders some kind of multilpliers that the distribution would be more equal and decentralized right from the beginning. Multipliers could consist from e.g. Atom-One contributions, Cosmos hub-4 voting history, Cosmos loyalty; staking duration since Cosmos hub-4 launch etc.
Tokenomics
This needs the best expertise, and here too Atom tokenomics can be used as a measure of what succeeded and what failed. The future Atom-One native token should maintain and accumulate its value to prevent that the Cosmos hub Atom money like parties do not emerge, incentives holding and staking. Usecases/lower total supply/avoiding surplus .. but I'm not expert with these
Treasury/Communitypool
This may partially seem somewhat cold, but the so-called Atom money party will not care about the Atom-One hub, they are mainly interested in Airdrop and dumping it as a financial benefit. The second is malicious attempts at governance. We should stick to the main idea of the Atom-One fork and only reward those who were serious with the original vision and hub minimalism on Cosmos hub who will surely be with same-minded cosmonauts even more serious with the Atom-One hub, instead of trying to please everyone. At the other hand there is also Yes delegator voters who didn't necessarily fully understand technically what they voted, but how these are seperated? If some of the Yes voters will be included I suggest vested Airdrop for them.
.. few