Cosmos Hub Bill 69 - Include CosmWasm in Rho Upgrade

Since I must have been lazy and saved a lot of details

First come to the raw material link

• Cosmos Hub Motion 69 (Mintscan)
• Thread #69 on the Cosmos Forum

Because I saw @High reconstruction wrote an article

The most controversial proposal in the whole "universe" - Cosmos Hub #69 (not Matters because he hasn't posted here yet)

Remind me to vote while the motion is still available (end time 2022-05-13 23:00:20 time zone unknown)

Explain the motion and write my opinion

Contents of the motion

It will be easier to read the above article/original proposal (I am too lazy to repeat what others have done

I will only briefly mention this

• Added CosmWasm to the upgrade codenamed v8-Rho
• The upgrade codenamed v8-Rho is documented on the Cosmos Hub roadmap (scheduled for Q2 2022)
• CosmosWasm is a smart contract module built on Cosmos-SDK (programming language=Rust)

gone XD

Pros and cons

Before listing my comments, let me remind you that there are at least two "topics" here:

1. Should the CosmWasm mod be added to the Cosmos Hub?
2. Is it time to add the CosmWasm mod to the Cosmos Hub in v8-Rho (2022 Season 2)

A. Should the CosmWasm module be added to the Cosmos Hub?

This question does not set a time limit for adding this mod

In short, whether it should be added or not, it can probably be imagined within a few years (the speed of the currency circle may be set to be better within one year)

positive opinion

1. It is convenient for future upgrades, adding functions, etc., because the proposal to write smart contracts and reuse them can be passed and activated, and there is no need to perform the current cumbersome and time-consuming upgrade procedures.
2. All kinds of strange and special operations can be written in smart contracts and then passed and executed
3. Because it needs to be passed to execute the bill, it is not so vulnerable to a certain extent.

There seems to be nothing else, but the above benefits alone will actually increase a lot of possibilities

The example of No. 1 is (quoted from the article mentioned above, the most controversial motion in the whole "cosmos" - Cosmos Hub #69 )

 For the Cosmos Hub, it is clear that liquid staking is needed for this feature. Lido, the leader in the ETH liquid pledge market, clearly stated that after Cosmos Hub joins CosmWasm, it will be able to provide ATOM liquid pledge services. If it can be successful, although the pledged ATOM will be locked for 21 days, it will obtain the staking derivative (staking derivative) stATOM, so you can do various operations while pledging, and make the best use of the currency.

negative opinion

1. Adding CosmWasm will increase the level of complexity again. When there is a problem, it is not a little troublesome and difficult to find the cause (because the possibility is greatly increased)
2. Some people think that the Cosmos Hub claims to provide security for other chains, less functionality is more secure (reduced attack surface)
3. The motion may have human error and not be found and have catastrophic consequences (mainly to damage the confidence of users, there must be means to do the data, but of course it is very troublesome)
4. (I am not sure about this, because I am not familiar with the technical content) Rust is a programming language that needs to be compiled. It is difficult to verify that the source code and the compiled executable smart contract correspond to each other
5. (I proposed this, but I haven't seen anyone else put it up yet) When there are enough incentives (Incentive) such as airdrops attached, since the pledger's choice takes precedence over the validator, it may make people blind and fail to verify the execution. Contract (seriously, most pledgers don't usually look at the source code even if there is no incentive...), just vote for it

No. 2 opinion should be the loudest voice, Cosmos founder, Jae Kwon ( Twitter link )

His comments on Motion 69 are detailed in a Gno.land document on GitHub

The example of No. 3 can be seen in the recent Juno motion No. 21, the input address is wrong (BlockTempo article)

Dimi has a tweet explaining why it happened (but the details are beyond the scope of this post)

B. Should the CosmWasm module be added to the Cosmos Hub in v8-Rho (2022 Season 2)

positive opinion

1. Join CosmWasm as soon as possible, let liquid pledge service providers such as Lido join in, let ATOM have more applications, drive demand = rise in currency price, attract more users, etc.

It seems that there is no XD (I didn't see it if I had a chance)

negative opinion

1. It is a continuation of A1, because CosmWasm is still new (or when it is upgraded to v8-Rho), and there may be a bunch of undiscovered problems (Zero-Day Vulnerability), which can be added after maturity.
2. Especially a Cosmos Hub where all the Cosmos ecosystems are connected. After an accident, if the perpetrator escapes with IBC, how to deal with and remedy there is no research/preparation plan/training/testing

There seems to be only a little bit here. XD

Liquid pledge is another topic, not discussed here

Banana Opinions

Banana is me =w=

I voted down (forgot Veto or not)

I agree with the objections to A except for 4 who are not quite sure, and B strongly agrees (a common problem in the currency circle: impatient)

I think many people confuse these two topics. Supporting A does not necessarily require voting Yes on Motion 69. You can wait for the next upgrade or the next upgrade (of course, you will have to wait at least a few more months)

CosmWasm problem diagram