Thread by @jack_zampolin

A thread on $DOT, $ATOM, @cosmos, and @polkadot

Both projects are predicated on the core idea that in order to have ETH like programmability/interoperability, applications need to have separate chains, preventing congestion on the overall network.

The difference comes in how they to achieve this. @polkadot's model is that all interactions between separate chains will be intermediated through a "relay chain" via a protocol called XCMP.

$DOT is designed to manage the scarce space on @polkadot. Applications that want to use XCMP must buy $DOT to both rent out a slot on the @polkadot chain and pay fees. Many investors see this value capture as key to the value of $DOT, but it is unlikely to materialize.

The XCMP protocol is still in the specifications phase, where as IBC is complete and will be live on the @cosmoshub in early 2021. This means that @polkadot, as an ecosystem, is at least a year behind from a core technology prospective, as well as having an explicit tax on usage.

With all this in mind, why would a chain pay the $DOT tax when they can use the functioning, permissionless IBC protocol to accomplish the same thing? Here's a hint: they won't, those chains will be using IBC

github.com/cdot-network/s…

But, what about muh value capture you say? $ATOM doesn't have any use you say.

Well this is where you would be wrong. The @cosmos community has built out the core infrastructure of the platform and applications on top: @terra_money @thorchain_org @bandprotocol @OKEx etc...

On top of this core infrastructure and community we have developed and are building the $ATOM2021 roadmap to accelerate value capture for $ATOM. This roadmap has been formulated with the decentralized architecture of IBC in mind from the beginning.

github.com/cosmosdevs/ato…

By the time @polkadot chains begin adopting IBC en masse and $DOT is forced to pivot its value capture strategy, it will be too late. They will still be years behind $ATOM, with no hope of catching up.