We joined the Cosmos in October 2017 as an outsider. Since that time, we've supported the community in our own, mostly quiet way, as Chainflow grew from a one person operation to the small team we are today. We never became an insider and have maintained our independence, while steering clear of political alliances.
On Progress and Voting No
Chainflow's excited to see the attention that Cosmos is beginning to attract. It's been a long time coming. Still, we believe things develop on their own time for their own reasons.
We attended Cosmoverse 2022 and have followed the Atom 2.0 discussions since then. We've followed the online discussions to the extent we feel they've been constructive.
We also had recent discussions at the Cosmos Lisbon meetup, within the Validator Commons and with our friend, Sacha Saint-Leger.
At this time we choose to vote "No" on Cosmos Proposals 81, 82 and 83.
This post will explain why.
Broad, Fast and Forward
These proposals, particularly 82 and 83, represent diverse viewpoints, strongly presented by various humans. They each cover a very broad range of topics and concepts.
Because they're so broad, we're not able to accept either in its entirety. This is why we're voting "No" on both.
We're also concerned that a "Yes" vote for either charts course down an irrevocable and unwavering path for Cosmos. Time has shown that for decisions that become this politically and emotionally charged, a "Yes" vote typically sends the "winner" sprinting out of the starting gate, racing toward a point on the horizon described in the "winning" proposal.
We believe this type of pursuit can become counterproductive. There's only so much we know now. Circumstances change fast. There's a good chance that the desination should change or at least be adjusted over time. However it's very hard to change direction when sprinting.
Fewer than two months have passed since the original Atom 2.0 paper was released. It's been amended since then. Time gets compressed when emotions run high.
The decision presented by proposals 82 and 83 needs time to be discussed without artificially imposed deadlines, i.e. by a proposal voting period. We feel more time is needed to plot a course with repercussions of this magnitude. We need an incremental approach, to take smaller steps and recalibrate along the way.
So it's for these reasons we voted "No" on proposals 82 and 83.
Regarding proposal 81, it appears to be an attempt to override the current on-chain governance process. While the idea itself may have merit, we feel that a relevant proposal would propose changing the on-chain governance process, rather than overriding it. It's for this reason we'll vote "No" on proposal 81.
This is Our Chance to do Better
Our world is more polarized than ever before. While we share a common humanity, society increasingly focuses on our differences, prodded by those in power, who then exploit the rifts. The Cosmos community has a chance to do better than this.
However, it will be a messy process and take time. It will take more time that the current proposals provide.
We believe these trade-offs are worth it, to not replicate the polarizing issues so prevalent in today's society and demonstrate that we're capable of existing in a healthier way, to build a stronger, more cohesive and resilient community.
We remain more excited than ever about Cosmos' prospects and plan to be here to support it long into the future.