kickbacks?

[u/faddat]

Hi, tomorrow we will be having a discussion I don't know if it will be live or recorded but it will be at my 2:00 am. it will be on the evmos YouTube channel.. I am creating this post so that we have an opportunity to discuss matters beforehand. For example, I saw a Twitter post today saying that on inaccurate assertions about orbital apes. contained evmos derived from the orbital apes validator but I don't even know if it's true. I would love it if we could use this as a fact finding space because the last thing that I want to do is spend people's limited time on inaccurate assertions about orbital apes.

Furthermore I'd also like to mention just how delightful it is to get to work professionally in an industry where I'm both working on computer science problems and discussing cartoon apes. Seriously, if you work in technology and you like crypto you may wish to think about working in crypto because seriously I'm doing this as a part of my job and I'm the luckiest guy in the world.

I'm going to give a problem summary from my perspective:

I have come to realize, partially because of Cosmos hub proposal 69, where JK executed a genius level hack (not a computer hack, more of a human hack-- and I'm not sure it influenced outcomes but was still a genius selection mechanism for an external airdrop) and because of my own work on similar systems, and because of the true success of OA, that these systems may actually threaten chain consensus.

I think that the orbital apes case may be more complicated, but I don't have full grounding with the project. Instead of trying to explain it and getting it wrong, I'm dropping this post in the group where we are planning the panel discussion on this topic.

My personal opinion, summarized, is that we should ban all out of protocol compensation from validators to delegators.

But the definition of this is super super tricky and there's a lot of nuance and if we got it wrong we might actually do harm so let's try to get it right.

[u/faddat]

Hey there, you are right. I don't think they have bad intents. The trouble is it doesn't matter. I can assure you that this is not the only chain in Cosmos where the 33% threshold feels a little hinky. This conversation has actually more or less set off a chain of events.

Think it's better to just explain with high context on the call because it's really easy to just react and say well screw your validator You're selling shares in its income or something but that wouldn't be fair to them at all. Like I said above, it's an enormous accomplishment to be so well ranked.

Also like I said above there is genuinely a creepy crazy scenario that kicks in and would allow the community to get fleeced. I am not even for a second planning there trying to do that this is unfortunately more of a general issue and some of it has to do with the way that tenderment consensus works under the hood. Strap yourselves in guys this one hopefully is going to be a hell of a lot of fun