Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Explain the expected economics of the network topology #59

Closed
cwgoes opened this issue Mar 26, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed

Explain the expected economics of the network topology #59

cwgoes opened this issue Mar 26, 2019 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
brainstorming Open-ended brainstorming.

Comments

@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor

cwgoes commented Mar 26, 2019

Particularly why one might expect "hubs" (central sinks of trust) to emerge in the network, and what particular purposes they will serve.

@cwgoes cwgoes added category-ibc-misc brainstorming Open-ended brainstorming. labels Mar 26, 2019
@zmanian
Copy link
Member

zmanian commented Mar 26, 2019

  1. Economic nodes like exchanges, custodians find upgrades expensive and intrusive.
  2. Counterparties do not like protocol upgrades for intermediate chains. Upgrades enforce high global costs.
  3. No one wants to reason about the security of a global system. It’s much easier to reason about a small number of chains where you directly do business.

We believe the natural architecture of an IBC system is as follows.

Hubs are relatively simple blockchains that implement very little other than IBC protocols and slashing conditions. We believe that native token of a Hub will be incentivized to collect fees from the assets that it collateralizes the security of.

Zones are complex blockchains with complex business logic and frequent upgrade cycles. They will generally invent their own incentive models for validators.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
brainstorming Open-ended brainstorming.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants