A little bit of chit-chat

CometBFT v0.37.0 has been released, which inherits the security and stability of Tendermint Core v0.34 and provides interchain applications with more control over the replication engine and access to a broader set of features. This release offers application developers access to two new ABCI methods, PrepareProposal and ProcessProposal, allowing them to build new features such as optimistic execution that can improve the latency of the application. This immediate execution can reduce the overall latency of a block. Applications transitioning from v0.34 to v0.37 will require major changes, so developers need ample time to upgrade and test with this version.

Moving forward

Over the past year, teams have had difficulty bringing new and important features to IBC. Those features that have been implemented often aren’t visible or cannot easily be maintained. 

This issue has resulted in the stalling the development of critical features such as Interchain Queries, packet forward middleware, and WASM clients, all of which are essential for expanding the IBC economy. In addition, the ecosystem loses out when it is difficult to contribute to a key software repository and there is an inevitable hit to widespread adoption.

As pointed out by the Notional team, the ecosystem has missed out on valuable contributions from key team. As an example, none of the Strangelove team’s contributions were merged into the ibc-go repository. To address these issues, a proposal in the community forum suggests appointing Strangelove, an experienced and active team in the Cosmos ecosystem, as the Maintainer Coordinator for the IBC repository. In this role, Strangelove would be responsible for coordinating a diverse set of maintainers who oversee the review and merge process, ensuring timely responses to pull requests, and maintaining the repository’s overall quality.

Moreover, Strangelove would work with a coallition of developers to improve the state of the IBC repository by transforming it into a repository maintained by multiple organizations, establishing clear guidelines for the review and merge process, implementing a triage process to prioritize pull requests, and encouraging community participation in the maintenance of the IBC repository.

This proposal will help ensure that ibc-go’s development process becomes smoother and more decentralized, aligning with the spirit and values of Cosmos. By appointing Strangelove as the Maintainer Coordinator, the IBC repository will become more accessible, encouraging contributions from a broader range of organizations, ultimately leading to increased adoption of IBC and expanding the IBC economy.

Tweet of the Week

The Original Tweet

Stop Spam

Spam governance proposals have become a pressing issue within the community, with some proposals going live and cluttering the governance system. As a result, Jacob Gadikan has come up with various solutions to combat the issue on the community forum. One proposed solution is to minimal initial deposit on governance proposals. This would ensure that anyone proposing governance changes would have to stake a certain amount, thus making it harder for spammers to flood the system with irrelevant proposals. While the exact amount of the deposit is still being discussed (with a range between 10 and 100 ATOM), the community recognizes the importance of keeping governance accessible while also preventing spam.

Another proposed solution is to require that at least one validator approves a proposal before it becomes visible. This would effectively stop spam by adding a layer of validation, but could also limit democratic participation in the governance process. It raises questions about who would be allowed to propose changes and what qualifies a validator to approve a proposal. The community is actively weighing the pros and cons of each approach and seeks to determine the most effective way to combat spam while maintaining democratic governance.

The last option that has been proposed is to limit governance proposal submissions to only validators. This would ensure that only trusted members of the community can make proposals, but it raises concerns about centralization and exclusion of other community members. It could also create a situation where certain validators have more influence over the decision-making process than others, leading to potential conflicts of interest.

Airdrops List

Here’s a list of upcoming airdrops.

Wrap Up

If you like our newsletter, share it with your friends so they can be also on top of the latest and the greatest (and sometimes not so great) of the Cosmos ecosystem. 

In the meantime, feel free to follow us on Twitter @zkvalidator and visit our website to stake with us.

A little bit of intergalactic music for you


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *