Thread by @RobbStack_sats

Prop72#

I'm oriented for a No, but I wait to see a deeper discussion and confrontation. The long timeframe of #Cosmos governance allows thoughtful decisions.

My main concern is the we have already @quicksilverzone that will likely leverage ICS

So why spend 150K $ATOM more

1/6

https://twitter.com/CosmosGovNotifs/status/1541209741329833984

#Cosmos Hub and community did a lot for this ecosystem. I would like to see the main builders sharing that value back to the Hub, now that they can.

Asking an high amount of funds to launch something that is already coming by a free contribution, doesn't seems wise.

@ChorusOne (Quicksilver team) that is also a long term contributors of #Cosmos didn't asked for any funds from the community pool and yet is considering to apply for #Interchain Security and share value back with $ATOM

This is an approach that I would like to see more in the early times of #Interchain Security.

I do think that Lido is a well funded entity and can build and compete with Quicksilver without the need of 150K Atom.

I'm open to fund Consumer chains, but must be a more appealing features, something that is innovative in the eco and more detailed informations on how the funds are used.

I'll be following the discussion around this proposal, before taking a final decision.

But as of now, I'm a NO.

*To be more precise it will be 50K Atom for the Liquid Staking consumer chains + 100k ATOM for projects that we don't have any info about, so it would be a blind investment for the community.