{"id":13567421,"url":"https://github.com/tendermint/atom_one","last_synced_at":"2026-01-26T18:01:53.418Z","repository":{"id":61740219,"uuid":"549435266","full_name":"tendermint/atom_one","owner":"tendermint","description":"ATOM ONE CONSTITUTION","archived":false,"fork":false,"pushed_at":"2023-12-01T21:49:28.000Z","size":158,"stargazers_count":27,"open_issues_count":6,"forks_count":17,"subscribers_count":7,"default_branch":"master","last_synced_at":"2025-05-22T22:41:02.237Z","etag":null,"topics":[],"latest_commit_sha":null,"homepage":null,"language":null,"has_issues":true,"has_wiki":null,"has_pages":null,"mirror_url":null,"source_name":null,"license":null,"status":null,"scm":"git","pull_requests_enabled":true,"icon_url":"https://github.com/tendermint.png","metadata":{"files":{"readme":"README.md","changelog":null,"contributing":null,"funding":null,"license":null,"code_of_conduct":null,"threat_model":null,"audit":null,"citation":null,"codeowners":null,"security":null,"support":null,"governance":null,"roadmap":null,"authors":null}},"created_at":"2022-10-11T07:22:45.000Z","updated_at":"2024-05-08T12:00:54.000Z","dependencies_parsed_at":"2023-12-01T22:42:08.950Z","dependency_job_id":null,"html_url":"https://github.com/tendermint/atom_one","commit_stats":null,"previous_names":[],"tags_count":0,"template":false,"template_full_name":null,"purl":"pkg:github/tendermint/atom_one","repository_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/tendermint%2Fatom_one","tags_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/tendermint%2Fatom_one/tags","releases_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/tendermint%2Fatom_one/releases","manifests_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/tendermint%2Fatom_one/manifests","owner_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/owners/tendermint","download_url":"https://codeload.github.com/tendermint/atom_one/tar.gz/refs/heads/master","sbom_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/tendermint%2Fatom_one/sbom","scorecard":null,"host":{"name":"GitHub","url":"https://github.com","kind":"github","repositories_count":286080680,"owners_count":28784093,"icon_url":"https://github.com/github.png","version":null,"created_at":"2022-05-30T11:31:42.601Z","updated_at":"2026-01-26T13:55:28.044Z","status":"ssl_error","status_checked_at":"2026-01-26T13:55:26.068Z","response_time":59,"last_error":"SSL_read: unexpected eof while reading","robots_txt_status":"success","robots_txt_updated_at":"2025-07-24T06:49:26.215Z","robots_txt_url":"https://github.com/robots.txt","online":false,"can_crawl_api":true,"host_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub","repositories_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories","repository_names_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repository_names","owners_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/owners"}},"keywords":[],"created_at":"2024-08-01T13:02:31.083Z","updated_at":"2026-01-26T18:01:53.412Z","avatar_url":"https://github.com/tendermint.png","language":null,"funding_links":[],"categories":["Misc"],"sub_categories":[],"readme":"UPDATE: Moved to https://github.com/atomone-hub/genesis\n\n------------\n\nOutdated, but includes extra writing:\n\n# ATOM ONE CONSTITUTION \n\n_UPDATE: now with PHOTON removed. PHOTONs can be implemented as an ICS consumer\nchain. For PHOTON tokenomics, see https://github.com/tendermint/atom_one/commit/6740297b387cade9566584760625ba0a94ac85ed_\n\n_This document is a work in progress. This document assumes familiarity with\nthe current workings of cosmoshub4 as of Oct 11th 2022. What is described here\nare modifications to what already is. This clause will be removed with future\nrevisions, and the corresponding parts of the document updated with a full\ndescription of the constitution of the hub._\n\n## Preamble\n\nWe the people of the Cosmos, in order to create a free world, enable voluntary\nand borderless transactions, facilitate permissionless innovation, ensure\neconomic security, cater for economic and technological development, allow for\nthe creation of sovereign zones, and maintain order among sovereign zones, do\nordain and establish this Constitution for the Cosmos Hub.\n\n## Part 0 Definitions\n\nCosmos is the interchain network composed of many sovereign zones connected by\nIBC.\n\nA zone is an independent chain (or an application hosted on a parent chain)\nwith a well defined governing body or bodies that dictate the governance and\neconomic rules internal to that zone. A zone by definition is sovereign or\npartially sovereign. A treasury DAO of the Cosmos Hub is partially sovereign.\n\nIBC is short for Interchain Blockchain Communication, and includes all\nprotocols that allow one chain to communicate state or messages with another\nchain by tracking the consensus state of the other.\n\nThe ATOM is the primary staking token of the Cosmos Hub.\n\nICS is short for Interchain Security, and includes all protocols that allow the\nconsensus of one chain to be partially or wholly secured by mechanisms on\nanother chain.\n\nICS1 also known as Simple Replicated Security, includes all protocols where the\nvalidator set is simply replicated across multiple blockchains and slash\nconditions are always submitted to a root chain.\n\nICS2 includes all protocols where slash conditions for complex failure\nscenarios of one validator set are handled by another validator set, where\nslashing affects tokens on the latter validator set.\n\nICS2A includes all protocols of ICS2 where stake is entirely managed by the\nCosmos Hub (in the form of ATOMs or other derivatives).\n\nICS2B includes all protocols of ICS2 where stake is entirely managed by the\nlogic of the other chain.\n\nAuto-staking is staking across all current validators in proportion to their\nvoting power. For example, if a validator that had 10% of the voting power were\nto get slashed 30% on the Cosmos Hub, and 50% of ATOMs were either staked onto\nthe Cosmos Hub or free (not auto-staked), everyone who auto-staked ATOMs\non the Cosmos Hub would get slashed 1.5%. Inflationary ATOMs are paid to\nauto-stakers such that they do not suffer from the inflation rate of ATOMs.\n\nA two thirds supermajority is where more than 2/3rd of all participating staked\nATOMs votes YES and the vote is above the current governance quorum value and\nthe voting period has concluded. ABSTAIN votes do not count toward the 2/3.\n\n## Part 1 General Provisions\n\n### Article 1.A. Fundamental Principles\n\nThis Constitution of the Cosmos Hub, hereinafter “the Constitution” hereby\nestablishes the foundations of the governance model, economical model, and\noperating system of the Cosmos Hub.\n\nAll subsequent governance proposals must be in alignment with the provisions of\nthe Constitution, and each proposal's proponents and all active governance\nvoters are required to ensure consistency between such proposals and the\nConstitution.\n\n### Article 1.B. Sovereignty of the Cosmos Hub\n\nThe Cosmos interchain network is composed of many sovereign zones such as the\nCosmos Hub.\n\nThe Cosmos Hub is composed of many chains including the root hub chain where\nstaking and governance transactions are committed and executed, but also other\nchains secured by ICS that are subservient to the governance of the root hub\nchain, hereinafter \"Hub Governance\".\n\nOther sovereign zones that are completely or partially secured by Cosmos Hub\nICS by definition have their own governance mechanism, and the Cosmos Hub\nprincipally enables and follows the will of the governance of such sovereign\nzones with regards to the pegged tokens originating from said zones, except in\nwell defined exceptional circumstances that involve bugs, theft, or harm to the\nCosmonauts of the Cosmos ecosystem.\n\n### Article 1.C. General Mission and Objectives\n\nThe mission of the Cosmos Hub is to create a new world allowing for\npermissionless yet secure interactions between the Cosmonauts of Cosmos in the\nSolar system.\n\nThe objective of the Cosmos Hub is to provide a classical BFT proof-of-stake\nmulti-token payment and transfer system; and to scale the security of the\nplatform to many applications hosted in other zones via Cosmos Hub ICS.\n\n### Article 1.D. Cosmonauts\n\nEvery person has the right to become a Cosmonaut and can freely engage on the\nCosmos Hub. As such, every Cosmonaut has the right to own at least one address\non the Cosmos Hub.\n\nAny Cosmonaut can also become a Citizen of the Cosmos Hub by using their\naddress to stake ATOMs toward the Cosmos Hub and participate actively in\ngovernance. The status of citizenship is granted in an autonomous manner.\n\n### Article 1.E. Rights, Liberties, and Obligations in the Cosmos Hub\n\nThe Liberty and Property of all Cosmonauts engaging in the Cosmos Hub is hereby\nguaranteed. Any restriction to the Liberty and Property of Citizens on the\nCosmos Hub can be done only through the Cosmos Hub's governance.\n\nEvery Cosmonaut has the right to receive benefits from their engagement in the\nCosmos Hub, including rights derived from held or staked ATOMS in line with the\nprovisions of this Constitution.\n\nEvery Citizen allows the Governance of the Cosmos Hub to restrict their staked\nATOM property by partial or full slashing according to their voting activity.\n\n## Part 2 Governance\n\n### Article 2.A. The Cosmos Hub Chain\n\nThe root hub chain of the Cosmos Hub is uniquely identified by chainid\n\"cosmoshub\". This chain commits and executes transactions that serve the\nfollowing functions:\n\n * governance voting\n * intra-hub token transfers\n * IBC token transfers\n * ICS1 and ICS2 management\n\n### Article 2.B. Cosmos Hub governance\n\nThe working language of Cosmos Hub governance is English.\n\nThe quorum necessary for a proposal to be valid shall depend only on number of\nbonded ATOMs.\n\nThe governance process must extend the voting deadline to ensure at least 2\nweeks of voting after the minimum quorum has been met.\n\nUX interfaces that present the results of voting on governance proposals should\nalso display the content of the memo field of each voting transaction such that\nthe reason for the vote can be seen.\n\nTODO: fill in rules of cosmoshub4 governance.\n\n### Article 2.C. Air-drops and forks\n\nEvery Cosmonaut allows any other Cosmonaut to create full or partial airdrops\nof new tokens to any chain using the distribution of any token on the Cosmos\nHub at any time.\n\nEvery Citizen allows any Cosmonaut to modify their pro-rata of their airdrop\nportion by partial or full slashing based on their cryptographic voting\nactivity according to well defined principles at any time.\n\n### Article 2.D. Treasury DAOs\n\nThe Cosmos Hub governance may establish one or more transparent and accountable\nTreasury DAOs by simple majority vote.\n\nThe operations of the Treasury DAO must operate on an ICS secured zone outside\nof the hub. As an exception, the tokens of the Treasury DAO may reside on the\nthe Cosmos Hub as a m-of-n multisig account where n is at least 3 and m is at\nleast 1/2 of n, where each signatory is an authorized member of the Treasury\nDAO and Citizen of the Cosmos Hub.\n\nThe Treasury DAO shall be composed of Cosmonauts, and at the top Executive\nBoard level be composed of one or more Citizens. All Cosmonauts and Citizens of\nTreasury DAOs including their Oversight Committee must have public and known\nreal personal identities. \n\nTo enable the well-functioning of Treasury DAOs and the separation of powers in\nthe utmost interest of the Cosmos Hub, each member can hold just one type of\nrole within each Treasury DAO.\n\nThe members of the DAO must perform efficiently in their role in line with\ntheir job description. They are accountable to each DAO’s Oversight Committee\nand the Hub Governance. They can be dismissed from their functions by a\ntwo-thirds majority vote by the DAO’s Oversight Committee or the Governance\nHub.\n\nThe role and functions of the Executive Board shall be further developed\nthrough governance proposals within each DAO, unless the DAO chooses to defer\nto Cosmos Hub governance by Citizens.\n\nEach Treasury DAO shall have an Oversight Committee composed of any number of\nCosmonauts. The Oversight Committee must have at least the right to freeze all\ntransfers of tokens from the Treasury or its designated m-of-n multisig account\non the Cosmos Hub.\n\n## Part 3 Economics\n\n### Article 3.A. Economic model\n\nThe one and only economic incentive model of the Cosmos Hub is the collection\nof market-based transaction fees from a large number of transactions across all\nthe chains secured by the staking of ATOMs on the Cosmos Hub including ICS1\nhosted blockchains.\n\n### Article 3.B. The ATOM Token\n\nThe ATOM functions as voting shares, economic incentive shares, and security\nbond for the Cosmos Hub.\n\nTo preserve the security and identity of the acting governance and validator\nset, the inflation rate of the ATOM is made to vary over time to target 2/3 of\nall ATOMs. The maximum inflation rate is 20% non-compounded per year.  There is\nno minimum inflation rate, and it can even be negative (deflationary).\n\nInflated ATOMs are paid to bonded ATOM holders in proportion to each\ndelegator's staking amount.\n\nStaked ATOMs are converted to Bonded Share Units.\n\nThe Atom Unbonding Period shall be 3 weeks.\n\nRedelegation is allowed twice per Atom Unbonding Period for any delegation.\n\nDouble signing at any height/round/step results in slashing penalty that is\nproportional to the total amount of double signing by all validators for that\nheight/round/step, with evidence collected during the Atom Unbonding Period;\nthe penalty shall range from +0% to 100% of the Upper Slashing Limit in linear\nproportion, the latter when 1/3 of voting power double-signs.\n\nComplex signing failures (those that require +1/3 to coordinate) shall result\nin slashing the Upper Slashing Limit.\n\nThe Upper Slashing Limit shall be 50%. This parameter may be increased by a two\nthirds majority of the Cosmos Hub. In cases where there is sufficient evidence\nof malice and intent, this parameter may be overruled by a simple majority of\nthe Cosmos Hub on a per-case basis up to 100%.\n\nLiquid staking may only be supported through interchain accounts (aka\nnon-native liquid staking).\n\nTo limit the amount of liquid staked tokens so as to reduce systemic risk from\nliquid staking, there shall be imposed a 5% tax (the \"Liquid Staking Tax\") on\nall rewards paid out to staked interchain accounts at time of reward\nwithdrawal. This Liquid Staking Tax parameter may be adjusted by a two thirds\nsupermajority vote of the Cosmos Hub. \n\nIf the amount of ATOMs staked using interchain accounts exceeds 20% (the\n\"Liquid Staking Factor\") of the total staked ATOMs, the Liquid Staking Tax\nshall automatically increase by 1% per month. The Liquid Staking Factor\nparameter may be adjusted by a two thirds supermajority vote of the Cosmos Hub.\n\nTODO: simplify the above two rules.\n\n### Article 3.C. Intentionally left empty\n\n(note: formerly an article on the PHOTON token)\n\n### Article 3.D. Inflation\n\nAny inflation of ATOMs to the Community Pool or a designated Treasury DAO\nbeyond the default inflation rate described in the Constitution shall require a\ntwo thirds supermajority vote of a special inflation governance proposal type.\n\nThe special inflation proposal can include a description of the purpose of the\ninflation, but cannot include any other modifications to the Cosmos Hub or its\nConstitution, nor the adoption of any new Treasury DAOs.\n\n### Article 3.E. The Common Pool \n\nThe Common Pool tax proceeds shall apply to transaction fees and inflationary\nATOMs, and shall be sent to the Community Pool.\n\nThe Common Pool Tax rate shall initially be 2%, but can be increased up to 50%\nby two thirds supermajority of the Cosmos Hub governance.\n\n\n## Part 4 Final Dispositions\n\n## Article 4.A. Updates to the Cosmos Hub\n\nNew updates to the Cosmos Hub should be broken down into independent components\nand discussed/proposed separately with adequate time between, regardless of any\nomnibus whitepaper. \n\n## Article 4.B. The Implementation\n\nThe Cosmos Hub shall not have any VM functionality, but shall be plainly\nimplemented in a single garbage collected language as reference (namely Go);\nand other clients may implement all or portions of the stack in another\nlanguage like Rust.\n\nThe only cryptographic assumptions allowed to be used by the Cosmos Hub\nincluding its consensus protocol shall be Ed25519 and Secp256k1 elliptic\ncurves, and RIPEMD160 and SHA256 hash functions.\n\nNo zero-knowledge proof systems may be adopted on the Cosmos Hub even if they\nare composed of the approved primitives.\n\nThe rules of this article may only be changed by two thirds supermajority vote\nof the Cosmos Hub.\n\n## Article 4.C. Compute/storage/memory limitations\n\nFor the sake of decentralization, accessibility, accountability, and security,\nthe Cosmos Hub and each ICS zone shall be restricted such that each can run on\na commodity computer.\n\n## Article 4.D. Amendment of the Constitution\n\nThis constitution may be modified or additional parts and rules appended by two\nthirds supermajority of Cosmos Hub governance.\n\n\u003chr /\u003e\n\n# COMMENTARY\n\n_This is not part of the Constitution_\n\n## Comments from Jae Kwon\n\n### About the economic model\n\nThe notion that ATOM is a \"memecoin\" ignores the obvious and original business\nmodel for the hub -- token transfer fees. Bitcoin and Ethereum gas transaction\nfees are in the 10s/100s of millions, and we haven't even gotten to VISA scale\nyet. ATOM is not money, it's VISA shares, IBM shares, and FED shares (but where\nATOM stakers are general partners rather than limited partners).\n\nIt's an alternative to the status quo that Bitcoin originally wanted to be, but\nmore. Well, imagine what kind of social manipulation we must be under, to be\npursuing such a dream.\n\nThe best part is we've done most of the work already. With minimal ICS the\nsimple-transfer-zones are already more or less done. We're 90% done with\nmassive scale MVP, and after that scaling will be relatively easy. AND this\nATOM1 hub is a minimal hub that zones will want to use. The product market fit\nis already there. It's simple, and we are already positioned for it. It is\nneutral to application zones that provide more functionality than token\ntransfers.\n\nAs IBM's CEO once said, the secret cash cow of IBM is transaction processing.\n\u003e IBM Mainframe=FT, Tendermint=BFT\n\nCosmos is the VISA network built upon this decentralized BFT mainframe system.\nAlways was, and should remain.\n\nNew functionality can always be permissionlessly added on top of this base\nATOM1 framework. The gno.land prop69 #exitdrop is a demonstration of value-add\nto the Cosmos Hub, as it will provide Gnolang smart contracts while IBC pegging\nto the Cosmos Hub for tokens.\n\nUsing ICS, it should be possible to run new Gnolang VM powered zones secured by\nthe Cosmos Hub, but also IBC connected to the gno.land chain for importing\nlogic hosted on the gno.land \"github\" (and paying gas fees \u0026 license fees to\neach).\n\n### The need for hubs\n\nSay there are 10,000 zones. Say a zone fails and it requires manual\nintervention.  With 10,000 IBC connections you require 10,000 zones to all\nagree on recovery procedure; will never happen. But a zone connected to a more\nsecure hub will be protected when it needs intervention.\n\nAnother need for hubs; uniformity of guarantees. You need a hub to coordinate\nshard zones where governance/policy and staking gets applied to all shards.\nOtherwise, you don’t have one system of guarantees, you have many independent\nchains. Need to scale sendtx, might as well ICS.\n\n### About security, and the need for ATOM/PHOTON separation\n\n_UPDATE: My thinking on this section has evolved since PHOTON can be\nimplemented as auto-staking on top of ICS1_.\n\nThe staking ratio today on Ethereum PoS is 12%. With massive adoption, unless\nwe have complete laymen involved in staking, and with ETH becoming money, the\nstake ratio should fall even lower, perhaps even to \u003c1%. At that point it\nbecomes easy to coordinate a fund to take over the consensus process of the\nchain. PoW networks have two “tokens” the mining infrastructure (which can be\nbought or sold, and also is “inflationary”) and the coins themselves. This\nseparation allows Bitcoin to become widely adopted without worrying about\nsecurity vulnerabilties, because even the largest of whales cannot simply buy\n1/2 of mining infrastructure. It isn’t a superfluid market, which makes it more\nsecure.\n\n(In biology, it’s the difference between Eukaryotic (cell nucleus) and\nProcaryotic (no nucleus) cells. Evolution has proven that multicellular\n(inter-cellular) systems like us are generally Eukaryotic. They both exist, but\ncomplexity demands more intracellular security.)\n\nImagine how easy it would be to create a fund and simply buy VISA… well not\neven buy, but simply bond the capital of the market cap of VISA, of $391B.\nThat’s a lot of money, but if bonding that capital means one can take control\nover the financial system, people would lend their money in a heartbeat. But\nthankfully VISA shares are not money, and there are probably plenty of\nshareholders who don’t want to sell.\n\nOnce there are ATOMs and PHOTONs, and the hub finds good ways to incentive\nPHOTON usage, we will end up promoting PHOTON more than ATOMs, and the market\ncap of PHOTON should theoretically eclipse that of the market cap of ATOM.\nThere’s much more money in circulation than the market cap of VISA/IBM/FED\ncombined.\n\nFinally, with the rollout of ICS1 and ICS2, simple-transfer zones and other\napplication zones, the inflation rate of the ATOM may even become negative to\nmaintain the target of 2/3 bonding. \n\nLiquid staking somewhat usurps the point of bonded staking, and thus by nature\nits utility is limited. It is already supported through the usage of interchain\naccounts, so that is all that needs to be done to support it. Rather we should\nlimit liquid staking and other systemic risks by limiting how much can be\nbonded through interchain accounts.\n\n### About consensus-driven investments\n\nGlobal governance consensus driven investments will fair worse than local\ncompetition driven investments, like central planning fails. - where-ever\npossible we should ensure that intelligence is preserved or amplified in\ndecisions. The way to ensure that good decisions are rewarded and bad decisions\npunished, is to require individual decision makers to put skin in the game.\nThis is why innovation happens in the private sector, and why governance\nfunding is seen as a corruption of private sector innovation, and why central\ngovernment planning historically has led to failure. It turns the incentive\nmodel of individual merit, into a game of politics. This is true even when\ndecision making is weighted by relative capital.\n\nWe can see this clearly in the private sector investment world. The best\nperforming funds do not have their decisions made by weighted voting of LPs.\nRather, the LPs are free to join and leave, while the investment thesis of each\nfund is maintained by select GPs. The ATOM2.0 tokenomics model is akin to\ntaxing all investment funds and putting the proceeds into a giant super-fund\ncontrolled by LPs. If this were to happen in the real world, the super-fund\nwould create such a large distortion of incentives as to destroy innovation in\ngeneral. It would turn into a game of media/mind/political control, and actual\ninnovators would fail to get the funding they need, and even if they did get\nfunding, the entire private sector would become swamped with the resulting dumb\nmoney, making it harder for innovators to compete with incumbent politicians.\nThe world would not accept such a policy toward central planning, and we should\nnot accept it either, as it will lead to sure failure not only of the Cosmos\nHub, but of the entire ecosystem.\n\nThis Constitution defines Treasury DAOs that have local decision making\nauthority, where Treasury DAOs compete with each other.\n\n### How to immunize against the mark of the beast\n\nThe powers of the world as represented by the WEF is intent on implementing the\nmark of the beast. As per the Book of Revelation,\n\n* The nations of the world were deceived by pharmakia/medicine (Revelation 18\n  23)\n* The mark (in original Koine greek, a needle prick) is required to buy or sell\n  (Revelation 13:17)\n* The mark gives you sores (Revelation 16:2) // NOTE: have no fear about it\n  even if you got the shot.\n\nHow could it be that a two millenia old document can predict what is happening\ntoday? Well, most people don't read the bible at all, and anyone can see the\nlight and turn into a white-hat. It appears to me that the white-hats have\nshepherded the black-hats into following a script that ends up exposes them\nwhen it is too late. And now the \"true Christians\" have indeed exposed the NWO\nagenda, and this awareness is growing exponentially.\n\nThis control grid was leaked by whistleblower Senator Larry McDonald in the\n70's, whose plane was soon after shot down.\n[(ODY)](https://odysee.com/@Commentator:e4/Former_US_Congressman_Larry_McDonald:1)[(TWT)](https://twitter.com/Xx17965797N/status/1578662395358384128?s=20\u0026t=MrwxzKymkKv6ehdfhvKlAA).\nThe \"monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means\" was leaked\nbefore by JFK who was assassinated in 1963.\n[(ODY)](https://odysee.com/@Real_Solutions:b/JFK's-Monolithic-Conspiracy-Revelation:7)[(YT)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhkjYJAHCjM).\nNow we have experienced the NWO control grid by the WEF, and its young global\nleaders, such as Fauci, Gates, Gavin Newsom, Trudeau; and even experiencing the\nwar between Zelenski and Putin. The WEF, whose leader Schwab boasted about\nhaving infiltrated government cabinets, also wants us to \"own nothing and be\nhappy\".  If it isn't clear enough, their logo even includes a subtle 666.\n\nThe fact of the matter is, we probably do want some regulatory system to deal\nwith large scale theft of coins resulting from bugs or human error/malice. Even\nif such a regulatory system is not imposed upon any zones, zones may want to\nvoluntarily adopt some kind of regulatory policy. And zones probably want to\nenforce these policies across zones that choose to adopt the same policies.\n\nIt follows, that in a minimal system, zones should be allowed to choose their\nown set of regulatory policies, and the Hub can help enforce these policies\nwhen it comes to IBC transfers across zones, or from hub to zone. From the\nperspective of the Hub, this is still a permissionless, voluntary system.\n\nWhen it comes to transactions on the hub, and transactions from zones to the\nhub, we should adopt the most minimal regulatory system. We could arguably do\nnothing--until it is too late, and we learn our lesson that we need *something*\nin the case of large scale theft from malice or bugs. The minimal nonzero\npolicy we can adopt, is to enable one or more bonded DAOs to designate one or\nmore addresses as being affected, with full justification, to temporarily\nfreeze those coins, where the coins will unfreeze automatically until the hub's\ngovernance votes to act upon the frozen coins or to freeze the coins for longer\nto determine the facts. Something along these lines is a minimal regulatory\nsystem. Also, it is probably sensible for the hub to implement a kind of\ndelayed transfer system, so that accounts with large token amounts can be\nprotected by this regulatory system in the case of theft. Perhaps accounts can\nopt out of this transfer-delay protection.\n\nThe above minimal regulatory system still begs for a full system of checks and\nbalances. That's another rabbit hole for another issue/document. The ATOM1\nconstitution hints at a system of checks and balances, but IMO it isn't\ncomplete yet, at least not in its current written form.\n\nThe challenge is to (a) further refine and minimize the aforementioned hub\ninternal regulatory policy, and (b) to define the inter-zone permissionless\nregulatory framework. With these implemented, the hub can ensure the rights to\nproperty, protect property in the case of theft, and allow zones to\npermissionlessly set their own policies. This is a critical\narchitecture/constitutional/regulatory problem we should be discussing today.\nUntil it is implemented, IMO crypto will not be ready for the general\npopulation.\n\nThe problem is, getting this wrong is _significantly worse_ than not\nimplementing it. When done wrong, either it will become destructive (tokens\nbeing frozen/stolen by the regulatory system), or it will become abusive (think\n1984 global dictatorship as per the NWO agenda, followed by global human\ndepopulation). It follows that the Cosmos Hub should not implement a regulatory\nframework such that it can allow the permission innovation and proofing of\nregulatory frameworks over time. This best increases the chances of success in\ndesigning the right regulatory framework.\n\nA Rule should be added to the constitution to succinctly represent the above\nparagraph.\n\n# LINKS\n\nFor more discussion, see\nhttps://forum.cosmos.network/t/atom-one-constitution-proposal/7514 and\ncosmoshub@googlegroups.com\n\nAlso see https://github.com/jaekwon/cosmos_roadmap/tree/master/shape_of_cosmos\nfor more a previous essay on interchain staking and other related topics.\n\n# Contributions\n\n* Jae Kwon - main author\n* Paul Susman - structure and various contributions\n* Manfred Touron - increase in redelegation\n* Thank you Cosmonauts for much feedback\n","project_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2Ftendermint%2Fatom_one","html_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/projects/github.com%2Ftendermint%2Fatom_one","lists_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2Ftendermint%2Fatom_one/lists"}