Today began where yesterday left off with Jae Kwon reiterating his call to arms for 'True Cosmonauts".
In his 'Call to Arms' document, Jae outlines why he believes the core proponents of ATOM 2.0 are "intentionally misleading the Cosmonaut community in order to get their ATOM2.0 proposal to pass", and cites that the "conflict of interest is astounding".
Read Jae's reasons for these claims in his relatively short 'Call to Arms' post at the link below:
MiB (Made in Block) validators voted no today on prop #82, providing four main rationales for their decision:
"This prop could effectively change many #GameTheory aspects of network participants behaviour we cannot predict."
"Recent events on FTX & Terra insolvency should alarm over protocol token collateralization. The Cosmos Hub... lacks protocol revenue, which prevents $ATOM from being a sustainable collateral. Also ATOM #inflation is too high for making it a suitable collateral.
"#LiquidStaking: .. we cannot consider it an optimal solution for the PoS’s security without a disincentive that can reduce systematic risk (e.g a Liquid Staking Tax)
"Many topics still haven’t been tested enough like the #ICS-Testnet, still far from setting a proper experimental playground."
In the $ATOM Governance Telegram group, it seems that some lessons were learned from yesterday's unproductive talks as both sides of the vote tried a little harder to reach a compromise.
Minting and Centralized Treasury Concerns
Adriana from Kalpatech raised the issues of money printing and centralization as particular sore points that need to be addressed. She called for a redesign of the current proposal with these issues in mind which could then be put to a new vote.
Catdotfish countered that such a redesign would take longer than 2 weeks.
Zaki offered his solution should prop #82 pass while questioning AiB and Dokia's commitment to compromise.
Jae outlined why he believes NoWithVeto is the only path forward, regardless of how they feel about each other. He questioned why the community should accept a flawed proposal with the promise to fix it later, instead of working a little more on getting the proposal right first.
Tax vs. Lump-sum Minting
Debate quickly moved on to the topic of tax versus lump-sum minting. Jae argued that with a tax, more funding goes to the community pool than would in the proposed ATOM2.0 model (which will allocate 4,000,000 to the community pool once in the first tranch, after which everything else goes to the treasury in subsequent tranches).
Jack seemed to agree that the community pool would be a better place to initially control the funds than the treasury.
Jacob vs. ICF
Jacob Gadikian outlined his dissatisfaction with relying on the Interchain Foundation and challenged Jae to come up with a solution that does not involve the ICF.
Subsequently, Adriana brought up her concern about the lack of ICF funds usage (the ICF received 10% from the genesis allocation).
Jack Zampolin brought up that AiB also has a large amount of funds. Jae responded that the AiB funds were allocated in payment for work done up until genesis, while the ICF allocation was intended for future work.
Life Imitates Blockchain
Finally, talks moved on to debates about real-world politics and how they are reflected in the blockchain.
You can watch the prop 82 video meetup here:
Did you find this helpful? Then please consider sharing this summary to help other Cosmonauts stay up to date with current events in the Hub.
Be sure to follow our Twitter for the latest Cosmos Hub gossip and news!