Date: November 10, 2022
Proposal: Cosmos Hub #82 “ATOM 2.0: A new vision for Cosmos Hub”
Chain: Cosmos Hub
Jurors: @earthboy75 (representing LOA Labs), @whisperintern (representing WhisperNode), @its_5am (representing Block Hunters), @sheeki03
Jury pool: @samoyedali; @alexausmus; @fattrooper; @whisperintern; @sheeki03; @zhuliang139989783313; @MARCINEK89XL; @5661998976; @morfeus3001; @berrehili; @its_5am
Witnesses: Sam Hart (Interchain Foundation)
Moderator: Antoine Vergne (Missions Publiques)
Observers: Joshua Tan (Validator Commons, Metagov), Ellie Rennie (RMIT, Metagov)
About the jury process: Validators Common - Deliberative Jury Pilot
We, the jurors, encourage stakers to vote yes on Cosmos Hub Proposition #82, “ATOM 2.0: A new vision for Cosmos Hub”.
We give that recommendation because Proposition 82 gives a long-term vision for the Cosmos Hub and represents a mechanism of value accrual for the ecosystem. It seeks to align ATOM with other projects in the ecosystem, with the Hub providing critical funding to develop new chains, rather than maintaining the Hub as a rent-seeking entity. If successful, the proposal (or rather, its future implementations) would create a flywheel of value return to ATOM holders.
That being said, we strongly encourage validators to take Proposition 82 at its word as a signaling proposal. We see the division it has created in the community and we believe that it must be the beginning of a deeper process of discussion. Topics that remain to be addressed:
There was a discussion on ICS and its relation to Proposition 82. As ICS implementation is largely independent from Proposition 82, we decided that the topic was not relevant to our main recommendation, though we acknowledge that it remains a critical concern.
The jurors, representing active validators or siple token holders, met during a deliberative process held on Thursday, November 10 from 8pm to 10pm UTC. Jurors were randomly selected from a jury pool of respondents to a publicly-accessible form, excepting @earthboy75 of LOA Labs who was pre-invited by the Validator Commons to ensure quorum. During the deliberation, an expert witness, Sam Hart, was invited to answer questions from the jury and was present in the private Telegram chat maintained for jury members and moderators. The recommendation here was synthesized by the jurors and moderators based on the jury discussion, and agreed on by the unanimous consent of the jurors. The recommendation does not constitute a commitment by any juror or the validator that they represent to vote in any way on the proposal in question.
The jury process was convened by the Validator Commons and moderated by Missions Publiques. More information about the pilot can be found at Validators Common - Deliberative Jury Pilot. This was a pilot and we acknowledge that the process is not perfect. But it is a start.