├── CALL_TO_ARMS.md ├── PROPOSAL.md └── README.md /CALL_TO_ARMS.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | # A Call to Arms of True Cosmonauts 2 | 3 | There comes a time when it becomes evident that the platform we built for the 4 | greater good is no longer bound by the principles that we hold so dear. These 5 | are times when it becomes necessary and natural to exit and form new 6 | associations. This is our right, as given by the laws of nature and 7 | cryptoeconomics. 8 | 9 | > "All atom holders are free to fork, slash, and hack each other in accordance 10 | with the spirit of the Cosmos Constitution." - _Cosmos fundraiser PLAN.md from 2017_ 11 | 12 | Atoms are not money. The dual token model is superior as it prevents the 13 | hostile takeover of governance from the common token holder. Bitcoin would be 14 | easier to take over if bitcoins themselves were used for governance, but it is 15 | not, rather it is mining infrastructure that determines voting power. Bitcoin 16 | would not be secure if mining infrastructure were as fungible and transferrable 17 | as money, as there would be less skin in the game. 18 | 19 | > "Atoms are not designed to be a medium of exchange nor a store of value. ... 20 | Inactive or unbonded atom holders do not earn the inflationary atoms, and are 21 | thus taxed. This makes atoms ill-suited as a medium of exchange or a store of 22 | value. Instead, atoms are a tool, like Bitcoin miners are a tool." - _Cosmos fundraiser PLAN.md from 2017_ 23 | 24 | The Atom inflation model is a shortcut for penalizing non-staking. That's it. 25 | It is not the primary economic incentive model for the Cosmos Hub. The primary 26 | economic incentive model for the Cosmos Hub is transaction fees through many 27 | chains secured by ICS. 28 | 29 | While the ATOM is a staking token, and the plan had always been for there to be 30 | many non-staking fee tokens, we also set out to provide a taste of the economic 31 | model through what we called the PHOTON token, which was originally intended to 32 | be a fork of the Ether distribution, back in 2017. 33 | 34 | > Each member of a validator’s staking pool earns different types of revenue: 35 | > * **Block provisions:** Native tokens of applications run by validators 36 | > (e.g. Atoms on the Cosmos Hub) are inflated to produce block provisions. 37 | > These provisions exist to incentivize Atom holders to bond their stake, as 38 | > non-bonded Atom will be diluted over time. 39 | > * **Block rewards:** For the Ethermint zone, block rewards are paid in 40 | > Photons. Initial distribution of Photons will be hard spooned from 41 | > Ethereum. This means Photons will be emitted 1:1 to Ether. 42 | > * **Transaction fees:** The Cosmos Hub maintains a whitelist of token that 43 | > are accepted as fee payment. 44 | > 45 | > This total revenue is divided among validators' staking pools according to each 46 | > validator’s weight. Then, within each validator's staking pool the revenue is 47 | > divided among delegators in proportion to each delegator’s stake. Note that a 48 | > commission on delegators' revenue is applied by the validator before it is 49 | > distributed. - VALIDATORS_FAQ.md Dec 2017 50 | 51 | So when the core proponents of Atom2.0 tell the community that ATOM is merely a 52 | meme-coin with no economic model, they are intentionally misleading the 53 | Cosmonaut community in order to get their ATOM2.0 proposal to pass. 54 | 55 | The conflict of interest involved in this maneuver is astounding. Ethan Buchman 56 | is one of three foundation council members of the ICF, who recently elevated 57 | Zaki Manian to oversee the transactions of the ICF's treasury. Another member 58 | of the FC council is the leading proponent of liquid staking. There is no reason why 59 | the ICF cannot fund for the development of everything in the ATOM2.0 whitepaper. 60 | The ICF has on the order of $150M or more, and a for-public and for-Cosmos mandate. 61 | It has enough funds to fund the development of ATOM2.0 multiple times over. 62 | 63 | Instead, certain proponents of ATOM2.0 have planned a hostile takeover of the 64 | Cosmos Hub by means of clever social engineering. 65 | 66 | * They modified the header of the cosmos.network website to make it appear as 67 | if ATOM2.0 was an "official" roadmap, in clear violation of the conflict of 68 | interest and the ethos of decentralization. 69 | 70 | * They announced this roadmap during CosmoVerse to further the narrative that 71 | there is a centralized team making an official announcement of this plan; 72 | where the event doubly served as a dog-whistle for centralization. 73 | 74 | * While the ICF already has $150M+ that can be used toward the development of 75 | ATOM2.0's project ideas, it instead proposed to inject $500M+ into a 76 | treasury whose charter would take control away from the Cosmos Hub governance 77 | to the treasury's centralized council for those funds and more. 78 | 79 | * After the initial highly negative reaction from the community against the 80 | original proposed ATOM2.0 plan, they have merely managed to split the $500M+ 81 | of funding into tranches, that still go to this treasury. While the 82 | subsequent tranches supposedly require the approval from Cosmos Hub 83 | governance, fact is the Cosmonauts with eyes to see are already planning to 84 | leave this network, so there is little reason to doubt that all the inflation 85 | will happen as they originally planned. 86 | 87 | * The justification for the $500M+ inflation was supposedly to inflate up-front 88 | for development and economic alignment given that ATOM2.0 turns the ATOM 89 | token into a deflationary token; yet the whitepaper doesn't actually turn 90 | ATOM into a deflationary token at all, because it still inflates 91 | exponentially in order to keep 2/3 staked. All that would have been needed 92 | was to remove the minimum inflation rate of 6%, and the existing ATOM 93 | tokenomics would have allowed for the inflation rate to even become negative 94 | with the adoption of ICS (and the ATOM2.0 whitepaper even admits that this is 95 | to be expected). 96 | 97 | * Rather than include limitations on liquid staking, the final ATOM2.0 that was 98 | proposed for governance removed any notion of limiting liquid staking, and 99 | rather included the only piece of criticism that I had mentioned recently 100 | from the quicksilver whitepaper that only 5% of ATOMs are at stake of 101 | slashing (and therefore that 95% of staked ATOMs are wastefully left unused). 102 | This is not true, as more than 5% of staked ATOMs should be slashed in 103 | certain scenarios, especially when malice is involved. The whitepaper says 104 | nothing about the various and real systemic risks associated with liquid 105 | staking but rather goes all-in on it. 106 | 107 | * Liquid staking combined with shorting markets will incentivize the employees 108 | or insiders of validator companies to sabotage their own validator. 109 | As far as I am aware, nobody has considered this risk factor, because 110 | not enough is known about the risks of liquid staking. 111 | 112 | * The ATOM2.0 whitepaper confuses the economic engine as being both ICS for 113 | the atom inflation tokenomics part, but also puts too much emphasis on the 114 | experimental allocator and very loosely worded section on the scheduler 115 | that appears to support value extraction as the economic model for the hub. 116 | MEV (maximal extractable value) primarily needs to be solved in the application. 117 | To make a block space market and to call that the economic model, and as one 118 | proponent says, to "democratize extractable value" is to opposite of what 119 | we need to do. It confuses an attempt to ameliorate centralizing factors of 120 | MEV by putting it on chain, as an economic model of the new ATOM2.0 vision. 121 | This is quasi-exploitative, and not generative. ICS scaling is generative. 122 | 123 | * The co-authors of ATOM2.0 even proposed Prop75 to redefine the NoWithVeto 124 | option to attempt to ban this option from being used to veto such proposals 125 | as ATOM2.0 Prop82; when in fact prop82 is exactly the kind of proposal that 126 | should be vetoed using the NWV option. Furthermore, they passed prop75 under 127 | the notion that it is merely a "sentiment proposal", but then used the 128 | passage of prop75 to shame people from voting NWV on prop82. And of course 129 | they say that prop82 is again merely a "sentiment proposal". This is 130 | intentional gaslighting and social engineering. 131 | 132 | Make no mistake, these are not mere coincidences. These are intentional and 133 | meticulously planned to take over and subvert the spirit of the Cosmos Hub, to 134 | ultimately rug us yet again like Luna was rugged. 135 | 136 | Given all of these points, what is clear is that should ATOM2.0 prop82 pass, 137 | good people will leave the Cosmos Hub ecosystem, and subsequent proposals will 138 | become worse, and all the tranches of inflation will easily be approved for the 139 | centralized treasury. 140 | 141 | There is no negotiation possible with the leadership in hand. We must stop 142 | pretending that we can reform them, or work with them. I have been dealing with 143 | these exact problems since 2017, and now 5 years later coming to the conclusion 144 | that it is completely intentional and by design, and that I should have left 145 | them years ago. 146 | 147 | So here is my call to action to the Cosmonaut community. Vote NoWithVeto on 148 | prop82. Do not be fooled, and do not tolerate this behavior from leadership. Do 149 | not work with them, for they have already made their choices long ago to 150 | manipulate their way to power. Do not drain yourselves of energy trying to help 151 | them do the right thing, if you know that their interests are maligned. 152 | 153 | If we show up in massive numbers to veto ATOM2.0, then stay and expel them from 154 | the ecosystem. Do not be cowered by their lies that nobody else will be able to 155 | develop the Cosmos Hub for us. The Cosmos Hub has spawned many teams to help us 156 | maintain the hub. Even Jehan Tremback, co-author of ATOM2.0 has stated that he 157 | will work on whatever the Cosmos Hub decides is its mission. 158 | 159 | If we do not succeed in vetoing ATOM2.0, or we barely succeed in stopping it, 160 | then it is time we organize an alternative minimal hub. We must start with a 161 | constitution, and in this fork we should remove the MintTx option and make sure 162 | that it is deflationary like Bitcoin, or in the very least not inflationary, 163 | like Dogecoin. MintTx is a source of corruption that will draw in the worst of 164 | us, and something like ATOM2.0 will happen again without us knowing it until it 165 | is too late. So let us throw this ring of power into the fire before it becomes 166 | a problem once again. 167 | 168 | > "What do I do if I want to tweet about controversial positions on April fools 169 | > but I want people to take them seriously?" - _Ethan Buchman, April 1st, 2021_ 170 | 171 | > "After careful thought I've realized that in fact, the most efficient, 172 | > effective, and sustainable way to structure the economy is to have one global 173 | > currency that all 7B+ of us can use and it should be backed by the largest 174 | > and strongest nation state government" - _Ethan Buchman, April 1st, 2021_ 175 | 176 | Let this serve as an eviction notice to (not all, but the malicious) proponents of ATOM2.0. 177 | 178 | ---- 179 | 180 | ## Commitment 181 | 182 | _I returned in May to provide organizational leadership and design direction for the 183 | growth of Cosmos. NoWithVeto on prop82 enables me to dedicate myself to the urgent 184 | development work needed on the hub without distractions. I will reapply to the foundation 185 | council of the ICF. Gno.land is complementary to my vision of what a minimal hub needs; 186 | one solving the token pegging and ICS scaling problem, and the other solving the smart 187 | contract problem._ 188 | 189 | _I can and want to do both._ 190 | _We must do both._ 191 | _I am committed to doing all of the above._ 192 | 193 | \- Jae Kwon 194 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /PROPOSAL.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | # Atom One Constitution (sentiment proposal) 2 | 3 | This is a sentiment proposal for the finalization and future ratification of the [Atom One Constitution](https://github.com/tendermint/atom_one). 4 | 5 | The Atom One Constitution completes the original vision for the Cosmos Hub, 6 | and defines a clear economic model with ICS1/2A/2B interchain staking to enable thousands of new zones to bloom. 7 | It provides checks and balances much needed by the Cosmos Hub to stay conservative and secure. 8 | 9 | If this proposal passes, the Atom One constitution will be finalized with additional input from the community and expert lawyers. The final constitution will then require another proposal vote to ratify. The spirit of the latest draft 10 | as linked here will be preserved. 11 | 12 | Links: 13 | * https://github.com/tendermint/atom_one/tree/13a717d5623e84ccb37127bb0301ae0e4bbb6999 (latest draft) 14 | * https://github.com/tendermint/atom_one (ATOM ONE repo) 15 | * https://forum.cosmos.network/t/atom-one-constitution-proposal/7514 (discussions) 16 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /README.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Moved to https://github.com/atomone-hub/genesis 2 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------