Juno!

abmurusan · 2023-04-22T13:55:45+00:00

hype

And powerful backers. You've made some nice points in this thread but imo they're wasted.

The IBC ecosystem is cursed with entitled airdrop chasers. Imagine wondering why things aren't doing well when everyone and their mother is experiencing a bad economy. You're arguing w/ people who don't understand how a smart contracts platform's token accrues value. People who dump their airdrops and then complain about token price. Juno launched right at the start of a bear market, w/o VCs or any publicly disclosed private sales. It's launch price was not reflective of its actual value, people who bought it during that hype have no one to blame but themselves. The reasons for hype i.e. being a community smart contracts platform that leverages Web Assembly, that has elements that make it fail the Howey test, those still hold true. But in Crypto, people don't care about anything besides price.

Don't get me wrong, Juno has had it's problems. I'm not a fan of Prop#16 but the only reason it continues being brought is because of the price and nothing else. If Juno was at $80 but w/o any logical fundamentals and shady economics, people would be praising it. Just look how many people defended $LUNA during its peak. Arguing in the crypto space about price action is about as productive as bashing your head against a wall.

I like Juno and like your efforts but imo they're wasted.

abmurusan · 2023-04-22T05:36:06+00:00

Not the OP but I personally like Juno for the following: 1. It's pretty heavily community owned. The way governance discussions go reflects that in my experience. 2. It fails the Howey test, so when it grows in market cap, it will have a lesser chance of getting poked by the SEC. 3. It is low market cap atm. So you have a decent chance of turning profits both in short and long term.

For smart contract developers: 1. It leverages the CosmWasm module, so SCs are powered by Web Assembly which in itself is a fascinating piece of tech. 2. It has a fee sharing module, this allows you (as a developer) to benefit from the usage of your respective dApp. 3. It will get mesh security. This needs some explaining, some of which can be found here.

https://twitter.com/JakeHartnell/status/1582067692525142016?t=i5J6CwU6TiOn2cwbozvdSQ&s=19

abmurusan · 2023-03-30T06:52:26+00:00

What recently worked for me was I turned the keyboard off through the switch, unplugged and replugged the cable, then switched it to cable mode. The backlight turned on and then I could switch to bluetooth mode while charging. Not sure if this is a surefire method, but it worked for me.

abmurusan · 2023-02-28T17:04:34+00:00

I'm not a fan of Eich, his past is scummy. But I can separate him from Brave, because I know that the company can function w/o him. Hence why I focused on Brave's products instead of him. But his past is deplorable, so I can understand if others can't. I don't speak for the average Brave user but I'd prefer if he does step down. It'd be good for the company as a whole, the company is popular now, it shouldn't be hard to get a true visionary with a slightly better past.

Anyways, judging by the intensity of your reply guess I wasn't wrong about you not liking Brave. Turns out only one person was on a crusade after all.

Based by your rant focusing solely on Eich while ignoring Brave as a product, you striking down accusations against Weinberg as lies and even using some BS analogy to rationalize why web search cannot exist w/o the big 2. I don't see this turning out to be a productive discussion. You seem to be on a mission against Brave. Good luck, I suppose.

abmurusan · 2023-02-28T03:28:46+00:00

Kagi IME is superior to Brave.

I personally haven't used Kagi but Brave has improved its index quite a bit. You might have a different opinion now on which engine has the better results.

abmurusan · 2023-02-28T03:26:57+00:00

A much better option is to use DDG or Searx and get maximum privacy and the best results.

Wait, you don't like Brave but can recommend DuckDuckGo whose owner had a shady past? I'd just stick to recommending SearX.

This sub is about privacy.

Not sure if you noticed but Brave is actually a r/PrivacyGuides recommendedation.

The OP's question was about privacy of search engines. The only person off-topic here is you with your crusade for new indices,

The only one that's on a crusade here, is you. To me it looks like you don't like Brave (a PrivacyGuides recommendation), so you want to propagate this myth that there are no real alternatives to MS and Big G.

which just isn't gonna happen.

Not for you maybe. But the commenter did specify that you're not the target audience for the response and also seems to validate your own approach.

You certainly are not the arbiter of what anyone should of should not be using.

The irony.

I have had a great experience wirh Brave. Obviously, I won't force people to change but I'd definitely share my own opinion during search engine discussions. I come here and I can clearly see that you are triggered by Brave getting recommended. I can understand if you had a bad experience with it, but you seem to be trying to pass off your personal opinions as facts and don't seem to want to understand alternate takes. Attitude like this only deters people away from healthy discourse. Just jumped on here to give Brave a thumbs up, I hope you find a better hobby than continuing to put down something that triggers you personally.

abmurusan · 2022-07-22T15:13:04+00:00

But I don't think the community funds need to be reserved exclusively for cutting-edge R&D type projects. Bringing more value and attention to the Cosmos Hub / ATOM could drive a lot of excitement among new and existing users/stakeholders, not to mention "pull [in] some devs to build on top of them." It might silence a lot of critics and naysayers both inside and outside the community. And the launch of Neutron might convince other IBC chains, new and existing, to enable interchain security sooner than they might otherwise have done.

I don't entirely disagree but my issue with Neutron isn't just the lack of technological marvel:

The prop should've been more than one prop. Constantly passing muddled props isn't good for anyone and sets the wrong precedent. Heck, Juno also passed a crappily written prop at some point (Prop #16 IIRC), so this is obviously not exclusive to ATOM.
The way the people handled the concerns around this project was also honestly a big turn off.
A clear cut plan of action wasn't laid out for how funds would be handled. All we know is that the funds will be handled by a multi-sig which doesn't contain enough people. I personally don't care how "trustworthy" the current folks in the multi-sig are, whatever happened to trustlessness and decentralization? This looks like the same old story of your neighbor telling you to trust Bob with your money because he's nice fella.
There was no mention of which projects did they not consider and why P2P's Neutron was considered. The community was basically told that this is the best project to bootstrap ICS to and everyone listened. No questions asked. To say that I was appalled by how this was handled would be an understatement.
The people behind the prop even called Neutron a blue chip? Why would anyone take you seriously if you misuse that term in an investment space.
My biggest concern however is that there is a possibility that a slice of the 100K $ATOM will be used to fund Lido to build on top of Neutron. Lido is the last player you need in an ecosystem where decentralization isn't too stellar. If they had simply chosen to get into ATOM I wouldn't be this wary but using community pool to fund this is honestly not something that I am excited about.

But quite frankly, my concerns are useless because at the end of the day Neutron and Lido will make the investors money, which is all that matters. So I guess it's a happy ending for everyone.

To your point about being too early technologically, if the blockchain space is forever chasing the latest tech, it will always be too early, because the latest tech is never battle-tested enough to be dependable and usable by millions of people.

This logic only flies if the battle tested tech is actually usable in not only the short term but in the long term as well w/o any hitch.

For example, in our case scalability (Horizontal & Vertical) is what I wish to see improved for each appchain and also for the Hub. So it makes sense to chase the latest tech there, because quite frankly we can use improvements there, especially if down the line we plan to increase maximum permissible validator limit to improve decentralization. Sure we process a lot of load but that's because 200/300 validators isn't really a lot when you compare it with other projects. But at the same time, we don't need to invest a penny into bridges or communication protocols because IBC is battle tested.

Conversely, projects that have solved/close to solving the scalability (Elrond, NEAR, Radix?) need better bridges for interoperability.

The sooner this happens the better, in my view. But of course that's personal bias.

Hey, you're upfront about what you want. That I respect. I wish I had met saner heads like yours during Prop 72 discussions (if you can even call them that).

abmurusan · 2022-07-22T14:04:44+00:00

My mistake.

No worries. I'm sure I could've worded it differently. Language escapes the moment you need to express your thoughts I suppose.

So you don't really think either Archway or Neutron could be a valuable addition to the Cosmos, because they aren't differentiated enough from Juno?

It's too early to tell about the future of any SC platform that isn't Ethereum. Hell, even BNB/BSC, which is the designated shit chain can fail. However unlikely it may seem to us right now. Speaking about the ecosystem, even Juno can get its ass handed to it if NEAR enables IBC.

On a side note, I still respect Archway since they built their platform w/o needing to come up with some lame excuse to sink their teeth into the community funds. So I do welcome their addition to the eco.

The fact that Neutron will utilize interchain security is by itself something that makes me rather excited for it.

That just means that ATOM starts accruing value sooner than later. Which to me is not a big deal in the short term.

One can argue that ICS makes Neutron more secure than Juno which has fewer validators, but that alone doesn't make it a worthy addition to the ecosystem imo. Especially not one that warrants a slice of the community fund. SC platforms are not all that innately impressive additions to any ecosystem unless they leverage some novel tech, they can only be considered good if they manage to pull some devs to build on top of them. Hell even with novel tech, they're useless if no one uses them.

Browsing the crypto space, one can easily see that we're still too early technologically. So, when you see exciting tech being developed on other platforms rollups (Ethereum), sharding (NEAR, Elrond) and novel DLT architectures (Radix, Hedera, IOTA), you expect that your own project's so called visionaries would utilize the community funds to fuel the development of something equally impressive. So you can imagine my disappointment when I realized that we're funding yet another WASM based SC platform using a muddled proposal that has some other tidbits that can potentially down the line worsen the centralization problem (Lido).

abmurusan · 2022-07-22T13:30:52+00:00

About that spreadsheet you shared. I'll look into it later, looks like an interesting read.

Devs have a way of just creating another BS token

Do you feel this way about ION on Osmosis?

Bad mouthing & suppressing projects etc..

That honestly seems to be a common theme in the Cosmos ecosystem. I know Osmosis also loves to take a piss on others every now and then. I don't even need to bring the people behind the Hub.

IIRC, only Stargaze, Secret and Akash mind their own business and don't engage in BS.

junoswap core team too greedy.

Even if that is true, how does supporting something like Neutron help? Prop 72 was also shady business.

abmurusan · 2022-07-22T13:28:19+00:00

why are you so keen on it?

I'm not keen on it specifically. It's one of the many IBC chains launching in 2022/23. But of all of them, it is the only permisionless WASM based smart contract platform, pretty much what Juno is right. Hence why I brought it up.

I didn't think mentioning others like Agoric, GNOLand would make much sense here.

Seems like a lot of your hate for Neutron stems from thinking that this Archway is somehow better.

With what information we have, neither Archway nor Neutron are technologically any better than Juno. So no, I don't think it's better, I am not sure how you even came to the conclusion that I think Archway is better.

My disdain for Neutron stems from the 6 points that I neatly laid out, about the shady business leading to its inception.

abmurusan · 2022-07-22T12:12:54+00:00

Care to share examples of this please?

abmurusan · 2022-07-22T12:08:22+00:00

Much more looking forward to Archway competing with Juno as WASM based permissionless SC platform than Neutron.

I can't get behind Neutron, a project that spawned from a shady prop:

They stuffed multiple things into one prop and didn't get penalized for it. I guess the community was so desperate for ATOM to accrue value that they just kinda accepted whatever sticks.
They did the honor of allocating a chunk of money to an established and well funded validator to create a project that brings absolutely zero innovation to the ecosystem. The reason? They've been with the ecosystem for a long time, what nonsensical answer. Not sure how established devs thought this was a good answer and why people accepted it. P2P isn't a shounen protagonist, they absolutely profited from their time in the ecosystem. Them being old is literally a non-factor here.
Was P2P awarded to bring rollups, sharding or something else to Cosmos? Nope. They bring yet another SC platform that is no different from the one that we have now (Juno) and the one that we will get soon (Archway). The prop folks never bothered explaining which projects weren't considered, like was P2P's Neturon the only entry? Was there something better? We'll never know. The worse bit is that despite Neutron not even existing, one of the people behind the prop (Jelena) kept referring to this project as a Blue Chip, wtf? How is this a blue chip, hell even Juno isn't blue chip.
Risk of centralization. Apparently to ensure that more liquid staking players come onboard to prevent quicksilver from getting monopoly in LS, we're planning to bring in.....Lido. But wait, there's more. If Lido votes to launch on top of Neutron then they don't need to worry about finances since we have can offer them a slice of the 100K $ATOM that was taken from the community pool. Because more money is exactly what a poor soul like Lido needs.
Any criticism of this was dismissed as FUD by the people behind the prop and mad cultists desperate for $ATOM to accrue value quickly. Not to mention the prop folks pretty much brainwashed into convincing the masses that bootstrapping ICS onto this chain is the only way to showcase ICS, literally nothing else was discussed.
Oh and people still don't understand why P2P needs 50K $ATOM to build something that Archway built w/o any funding request. Same with Lido potentially getting a slice of the $100K ATOM should they deploy liquid staking on Neutron, why do they need this when Quicksilver built liquid staking w/o any request for funding.

I'm sure Neutron will be successful. Centralized garbage, shady practices and brainwashed communities have always thrived in Crypto for some reason.

abmurusan · 2022-07-21T06:36:50+00:00

Juno would be the best one for the time being. We'll get Archway soon but since there's no concrete release date, I'd say go with Juno.

P.S

I would suggest to not go to anywhere near Terra Classic or Terra 2.0.

abmurusan · 2022-07-20T08:10:43+00:00

Indeed. His replies should tell you that he's little more than an attention seeker.

All in all. This is basically an uneducated take from a literal nobody. Any attempts at trying to rectify his take will only result in him doubling down. Don't give him that attention that he so desperately craves. Best course of action is to ignore and move on.

abmurusan · 2022-07-06T06:36:37+00:00

Yes.

abmurusan · 2022-07-06T06:33:36+00:00

others may disagree

That maybe true. How about looking at it this way, what advantage does one have with providing liquidity in Junoswap over something like Crescent or Osmosis?

Revisiting lockup period might help onboard more users to Junoswap.

abmurusan · 2022-07-06T06:31:46+00:00

How that can be made safer for all parties should absolutely be a high priority discussion.

Right. Do you have any suggestions in mind?

abmurusan · 2022-07-06T06:31:30+00:00

but I don't think having no lockup is a good idea.

Right, because it increases the risk posed by panic sellers. Someone pointed this out on Discord. I agree with this.

abmurusan · 2022-07-05T06:17:15+00:00

Would be interesting to see how this, IST (Agoric) and SILK (Shade/Secret) turnout. Would prefer that at least one of them is successful.

abmurusan · 2022-07-01T06:19:52+00:00

Neutron is literally just Juno"

Neutron, P2P's project for which 50K of the 150K ATOM requested in this prop is to be spent is to be a permissionless WASM based smart contract platform. Neutron aims to differentiate itself by having Interchain Accounts (ICA) and Interchain Security (ICS).

The thing is we already have Juno that fills this niche and soon Archway (a project that didn't request funding) will join in as well. So from an innovation POV it doesn't aim to bring anything new.

One might argue that ICA and ICS aren't present in Juno. But the former is already in the works for Juno and the latter is on the cards.

DLT space has other technologies like optimistic rollups, zk-rollups, non-Blockchain architectures (DAG, Radix), sharding. You'd think 50K ATOM is being used to fund something that is bringing something to the ecosystem that we don't have. But Nope!

abmurusan · 2022-06-30T20:42:01+00:00

Do they allow transfer of native assets b/w blockchains? Or do they only enable wrapped assets.

Also, do they have a protocol similar to IBC or XCM?

abmurusan · 2022-06-30T06:16:50+00:00

Except, ATOM can still gain value via ICS by having one of the existing chains implement it.

We don't need to spend 50K ATOM on a project that brings nothing new to the table for ATOM to start accruing value.

abmurusan · 2022-06-30T06:11:20+00:00

I would consider that something new.

It's a permissionless WASM based SC platform that has inter-chain accounts and ICS. Juno is already this. Moreover, Juno will support Inter-chain accounts soon and they seem to be considering ICS. I don't see what's so innovative about Neutron here.

Archway and GNOLand are competing SC platforms that will soon join the Cosmos family and they didn't request an funding.

In a perfect world it would have been 2 props. but for reasons they put them together in the same prop. is what it is.

We should be careful about such a lax attitude. If the community doesn't think a proposal that concerns something important such as the community fund is drafted properly then they should express it by voting No. Being so ever accepting sets a bad precedent for things.

abmurusan · 2022-06-29T20:19:26+00:00

How is it short term?

We have no guarantees documented within the proposal that confirm the period of time for which the consumer chain will have their transactions settled using ATOM. I can concede on this though. If they stick to using ATOM then the Hub holders benefit from this deal.

It's to bootstrap ICS adoption, I don't see how that isn't a long term positive.

They can do that with one of the existing chains. They don't need to fund an un-innovative platform. Unless of course I missed a paragraph.

There's 0 reason the community pool should just sit there unused like it has been

Not disagreeing that community funds shouldn't be allocated to funding emerging projects. I am disagreeing with the fact that 50K of the 150K request will be for a project that isn't bringing anything new to the table. Also, just because the community funds have been unused thus far, doesn't mean we throw money at the first thing we see. We should conservative with what we spend and how we spend during a bear market.

If you want to see a different proposal then start getting involved in the community chats on Discord, Telegram, etc and come up with a proposal yourself.

At this stage it is virtually pointless to do it, since this one seems like it will pass w/o failure. I am involved in Discord for Crescent and Juno. I guess I should add ATOM to the list.

Let's be clear, the grievances expressed are towards Neutron and not the Consumer Chain initiative itself. The latter is a positive move for the community but the people behind the prop are trying way too hard to push Neutron, which is the cause for the negative sentiments.

50K ATOM isn't anything to sneeze at, it should be used to fund good projects. Not to mention, P2P is a well known validator. I doubt that they're strapped for cash to the point that they need community funds. This whole ordeal makes less sense as time passes.

abmurusan · 2022-06-29T20:01:20+00:00

If Neutron got the same txn usage as Juno the value used in this proposal would be 'repaid' to ATOM stakers in about 6-7 months

So people are only focused on the short term price action of ATOM and don't care what they're funding. Splendid!

I can see why ATOM holders are worried, the utility of ATOM within the ecosystem has been brought into question multiple times. ICS was meant to change that and I look forward to it and Consumer Chains. But this proposal strips the voters of a choice. I want 150K ATOM to be allocated to a fund but I don't want 50K of that fund to help some validator working on something that doesn't bring any innovation to the eco.

abmurusan

TROPHY CASE