Fix Cosmos Ecosystem Power Dynamics

[andergri]

The Cosmos Ecosystem has experienced a prolonged period of political intricacies. It's essential to foster an environment where zones aren't compelled into direct competition with the central hub. AtomOne's approach stands out by championing a minimalist version of the hub, providing a refreshing alternative.

Currently, Gaia has become concentrated, favoring only a select few teams and insiders. This concentration can be frustrating for other Cosmos zones seeking resources and attention. Presently, the ICF, Atom Accelerator, and hub governance serve as the primary mechanisms for supporting teams within the Cosmos ecosystem.

I advocate for a primary chain devoted to elevating all teams within the Cosmos ecosystem, regardless of their affiliations or exclusivity. A commitment to assisting every entity within Cosmos aligns with a more inclusive and equitable vision for the entire ecosystem.

Griffin

[giunatale]

I advocate for a primary chain devoted to elevating all teams within the Cosmos ecosystem, regardless of their affiliations or exclusivity.

What does this mean in practice?

A commitment to assisting every entity within Cosmos aligns with a more inclusive and equitable vision for the entire ecosystem.

What does "assisting" mean?

I am asking this because, while I generally don't digaree with most of what's written here, I don't get

This concentration can be frustrating for other Cosmos zones seeking resources and attention.

without thinking that this is basically saying that the Hub is "ignoring" - i.e. not sponsoring or funding - competing solutions like Archway in favor of Neutron which uses ICS. This strategy-wise, unless Archway is considering adopting ICS too, kinda makes sense at least to me. Plus I've seen that AADAO funded Astrovault which afaik is a project on Archway.

It would be appreciated if you could clarify. Again I am not pushing against what you said, I am just not comfortable with the potential conflict of interest I personally read between the lines.

[jaekwon]

"elevating all teams within the Cosmos ecosystem, regardless of their affiliations or exclusivity"

and what does elevating mean?

I support Cosmos supporting any non-hub zone that follows the rules set forth by the AtomOne constitution and bylaws. It might be the case that AtomOne needs for a zone to strictly only connect to the hub for token pegging, for example. It might not want to or it may not be safe to connect to other hubs that don't follow the expected protocol, or that AtomOne deems to be insecure. But otherwise, everybody within reason (complicated by sanctions for example) are welcome to use the services of the AtomOne hub. AtomOne must be able to exclude bad actors from participating in social events or meetups, for example, if they were determined to be trolling or disruptive or were harassing others for example, or if they have a proven track record of trying to undermine the constitution of AtomOne.

AtomOne isn't going to be for everyone's liking, and AtomOne won't want to work with everyone. It should have a broad mandate to serve everyone within technical reason, and not exclude anyone from using the services of the chain due to their political affiliation or personal or religious beliefs for example. But I also don't believe it should have a mandate to "elevate" everyone beyond that, because the underlying thesis is that diversification is good. You can always pick another hub. The duty of a country should be to its citizens, not to everyone in the world.

I am open to introducing a slight UBI-like component, but making sure it is at arms-length distance from the AtomOne hub itself. See https://github.com/atomone-hub/genesis/issues/26#issuecomment-1832217458. This is along the lines of your inquiry -- fixing long-term power dynamics across forks and splits with PoS.