JeremyParish69

@polkachu_intern All buttholes look pretty similar

WAIT A MINUTE

@osmosis @cosmoshub I'm not saying the current proposed terms are perfect. There might even be a way to keep to OSMO token for app-specific subDAO governance on the Hub instead of converting to ATOM. But there will be a cost for migration efforts...

Should @osmosis migrate to @cosmoshub? Remain separate only if it can fund security without heavy inflation, can support ongoing chain development, and require chain-level functionality (e.g., protorev). Migrate if it's moving toward maintenance mode.

@buchmanster @sunnya97 So people can’t trigger a bank run, but reserves are still mostly debt… might be a genius move tbh

@sunnya97 treasuries of course. all bitcoin pioneers believe firmly in the soundness of the American govt's debt

what if bitcoin was just a psyop to get full-reserve banks 😳

Either way, this write up offers good perspective

Some thoughts I haven't heard mentioned yet: -easy to mention to ppl IRL--crypto traders I talk to know of Cosmos but not Osmosis (and don't understand "ecosystem") -will simplify IBC, help 'canonicalize' ibc routing through the hub, and avoid ibc xfer path conflicts

@coreyganim I was already developing something just like this independently (framework with task decomposition and agent utilization), but I guess I should just use this instead....

@RoboMcGobo @Cosmos_Airdrops Thanks for clarifying! and really interesting that it ended up having no effect

@JeremyParish69 @Cosmos_Airdrops As stated this is not fully true. Only validators with exposure to publicly blacklisted or sanctioned wallets within the 3-hop budget are excluded and this is for legal reasons. As it happens, no such exposure was found so no validators were excluded on this basis anyway.

Cosmos Hub just hired its own investigator. ⚛️ Together with Range, the ICF picked validators for the 13.5M $ATOM delegation. They filtered everyone using three main rules: 🔹 They checked if wallets had links to hackers or sanctioned entities. If a validator was too close to "dirty money" (within 3 transfers), they were out. 🔹 Only 76 out of 200 validators hit the 80% voting requirement. 🔹 They looked at the last 90 days of uptime, slashes, and kept commission at a 10% max. This screening will happen every quarter. Validators now have a clear checklist if they want to keep ICF support. 🛡️

@Reecepbcups_ Seems like their business strategy? IMO, best to keep the core free and popular, while the interesting features can be licensed for revenue. But it's getting scary that all of it may become licensed.

Yes, they have every legal right too. but at what point does the entire SDK just become licensed? Accounts? have to pay us Tokens? yea have to pay us too Governance? sure, email us

The ICL just turned a core Cosmos-SDK module to enterprise after deprecating it in August like, just copy pasted.

wen will my local stores accept stablecoins?

@osmosis @madscientists_x I remember these!

These are our Mad Scientists 🧪 @madscientists_x Show us yours! 👀

@jelena_noble Hoping that noble be able to handle all parts of payment and settlement

Noble was early to multiple trends in the stablecoin arena that are now very over talked about imo Our next move will surprise and delight 😌💜

@CosmosEcosystem Time to reduce quorum requirement

One more sad news... Cosmos Hub is no longer able to function as a Hub The proposal to recover the IBC-client failed solely because a quorum was not reached Only 36.61% of the minimum required 40% voted in favor of the proposal This means that networks connected to Cosmos Hub via IBC-relays no longer have the assurance that the connection will be restored in the event of a failure, which could lead to users' tokens becoming permanently stuck in another network, further reducing the use of Cosmos Hub as a Hub Since @cosmoslabs has assumed responsibility for managing Cosmos Hub, the blame for what is happening can be placed solely on them They are failing in their "leadership" responsibilities and are unable to motivate validators to vote on technical proposals What are they doing? They are selling their face, but it’s a pity this doesn’t affect the price of $ATOM

@noble_xyz I suppose for most merchants (Starbucks aside) the value of interchange savings and data likely outweighs the forfeited benefits of breakage and float, is that right?

@jelena_noble Tokenized stocks on the new evm?

Nm

@vorobev_sa @jelena_noble @pls_giveup I had the same question

@jelena_noble @pls_giveup @jelena_noble I apologize if I didn't express myself clearly. What I mean is, what decentralized bridges do you plan to use on the new network? Or will you also use IBC via Eureca on the new network?

Noble’s departure is neither something to celebrate nor something to mourn. However, from a technical standpoint, I still don’t fully understand why they felt compelled to move away from the Cosmos SDK. Isn’t it already possible to build a standalone EVM chain using the Cosmos SDK today? @jelena_noble @0xMagmar

@jelena_noble @pls_giveup This explanation helps a lot. So although Cosmos SDK has well-designed constraints for simple business logic, Noble needs more execution-layer control than the SDK is meant to provide.

We decided to move away from the Cosmos tech stack for a few reasons. First, we have a lot of respect for Tendermint/CometBFT and are grateful for how well it has powered Noble to date. That said, consensus research has moved forward significantly, and adopting Simplex (via Commonware) lets us stay at the forefront of that innovation while preserving the security and finality guarantees we’re accustomed to. We’re deliberately optimizing for next-generation consensus research and implementations, and Simplex (2023) aligns better with where we want to be long-term than Tendermint (2010) like algorithms. Simplex preserves instant finality under the same ≥2/3 honest-stake assumption as Tendermint, but achieves it with a simpler, more efficient consensus core. It reduces round complexity, avoids leader churn and timeouts in the common case, and is designed for higher throughput and lower latency, especially under stable network conditions. Second, while Cosmos EVM is a meaningful step in the right direction, integrating the EVM directly via a battle-tested execution client like Reth gives us substantially more flexibility and control over the execution layer than is practical within the Cosmos SDK today. Hope that makes sense.

@noble_xyz not for initial migration, but in general, would you consider supporting an ibc connection between this new evm and cosmos?

@AirdropGlideApp Complex, but probably should be around interface similarity. E.g., if a chain has at least, say, 80% of the same endpoints that cosmos hub has, then it’s likely close enough for most existing cosmos tooling to include it as one of the chains it can support.

What makes a chain, A "Cosmos" chain?