If you’re new to #Cosmos (like me), you might be surprised about the intensity of the public debate. Since it is quite useful to understand the current dispute between important ecosystem actors, here's a neutral account of some prior events 🧵
Let's start from the beginning, as it was told by @buchmanster told @Cryptocito : when the two met, @jaekwon had already started researching proof-of-work consensus algorithms in the classical literature. That was before Ethereum.
Jae was the first to work on a byzantine-fault tolerant algorithm in the blockchain space. In 2014, Ethan & Jae created a company called Tendermint, who later organised the a public token sale for $ATOM, raising 17 million in 2017.
Cosmos successfully launched its mainnet in Mar-2019. But after that, it seems Jae started working on a new project called @VirgoUDV, and was apparently looking for a co-founder in Oct-2019.
Virgo's mission is to "decentralise our financial, social, and org tech systems from open software to open hardware", but I'm not clear if the project is still active or not - maybe @gadikian can help as I see he contributed
In Jan-2020, Jae denied rumours that he was leaving the Cosmos ecosystem, and that he would stay on the board of the @interchain_io
A couple of days later, @zmanian, then Director at Tendermint, stepped down from his role as Cosmos number two, along with a number of key employees like @jack_zampolin (ex-Director of Product) and @jessysaurusrex (ex-Director of Security)
In Apr-2022, Jae started to demystify the project and introduced @_gnoland as an interoperable smart-contract blockchain in the Cosmos ecosystem, and everything was fine.
.. and Jae didn't take it lightly, immediately suggesting he would exclude @interchain_io, @ignite_com and anyone voting "yes" to the proposal from the $GNOT airdrop to $ATOM stakers
And that's where we are today. Hopeful this helps some people understand what's going on ; personally I'm happy to see this is nothing more than a regular company dispute - just happening publicly on Twitter instead of privately behind closed doors
Fortunately I'm typically not explaining drama, but instead covering the whole ecosystem through educative & digestible threads on governance proposals, airdrops, tokens, teams & projects, so consider retweeting & giving me a follow @ThyBorg_ ✌️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Since $UST is the de-facto stablecoin of the #Cosmos ecosystem, I thought it'd be interesting to sum up the intense story of yesterday's de-pegging sequence 🧵
It started Saturday afternoon on the East Coast with significant withdrawals from the Anchor protocol
In an effort to promote the good actors of the ecosystem, I'm planning to publish a couple of threads per week on the most active community validators, starting today with fellow Frenchmen @imperator_co 🧵
Note that @imperator_co is the first validator to be listed on the new "Thyborg Cosmos Validator Ranking" available below. Imperator nominated @crypto_crew next, so I'll try to set up an interview with them, and the list will slowly grow that way cosmosvalidators.org
With 4 engineers, Imperator is a significant code contributor within the ecosystem validators. Their biggest achievement is clearly the website info.osmosis.zone and its widely used API (e.g by Dexmos & CitadelOne). Imperator is also an IBC relayer
#Prop69 is getting everyone talking about CosmWasm so I thought it would be useful to explain what it is (while careful ignoring the hot debate around its implementation in the Cosmos Hub) 🧵
Unlike virtual-machine blockchains (like Ethereum) where everything is programmed as a set of smart contracts, the Cosmos SDK is a framework for application-specific blockchains
The framework is designed to build blockchains out of composable modules. Anyone can create a module, and integrating already-built modules is straightforward
#Prop69 isn’t a scam or a spam, & people are voting “No w/ Veto '' just to get $GNOT. Thing is, these wallets are essentially forever tagging themselves as “airdrop chasers''. As Cosmos grows, it wouldn't surprise me if other projects use that vote to exclude the chasers
I appreciate the fact that some people actually wish to convey the strongest opposition possible. However in blockchain voting "No w/ Veto" traditionally means the proposal is a scam and the proposer should loose the deposit
Also projects are free to incentivize voting however they want, and people are free to try to maximise their airdrop. I wrote a thread about doing that with #Gnoland here
Yesterday Cosmos founder @jaekwon published a lengthy article explaining his opposition to Cosmos governance proposal 69 and the details of the upcoming #Gnoland airdrop for $ATOM holders, which I've summarised as a Q&A below 🧵
I've explained Jae's and the minimalist hub philosophy in this previous thread. Note that this is not an endorsement of the "No" vote as I personally haven't made my mind yet
I've worked out the revenue of #Cosmos validators: the average on the Cosmos Hub is around $45,000 per month at current prices, and $100,000 at all-time. These averages come with a huge variance so let's break it down 🧵
First it's important to note that I'm only talking about revenues, not profits. In order to work out the profit, we would need to figure out the costs, and I'll focus on that in a separate thread
Second, I'm only talking about Cosmos Hub validators here. Since most validators operate on several blockchains (e.g #Osmosis, #Juno etc.) their total revenues are much higher. I'll share the results for other blockchains in a separate thread