Neutron and Osmosis Mars alignment proposals - a path forward

Over the last few days, Neutron and Osmosis have both made public offers to Mars Protocol (you can read Neutron’s proposal here and Osmosis’s proposal here). This follows weeks of private correspondence between the respective contributors.

To be clear, neither of these offers involves Mars abandoning Osmosis or Neutron. Mars has existing outposts on both chains and these will continue to exist regardless of what happens with these proposals. Instead, the proposals primarily concern the location of the Mars Hub, with the Neutron proposal including an additional 3-month exclusivity clause on new feature developments.

Given the protocol has now received two competing public offers, we need to find a fair way for the DAO to arrive at a decision. I suggest the following process:

  1. Discussion - Mars community members will use this thread to discuss both proposals, how they intend to vote, and why. This will include Mars contributors who each have their own views on what Mars should do

  2. Voting - Assuming the Osmosis and Neutron alignment proposals both pass their respective governance processes, Mars Protocol will post two separate governance proposals: “Accept the Neutron alignment proposal” and “Accept the Osmosis alignment proposal”. It’s important to note that while Mars contributors will be able to vote, they will not vote as a block; each contributor is contractually obligated by their token grant agreement to vote independently

  3. Decision - Most likely, one proposal will pass and the other will fail in which case contributors will follow the proposal that passes. In the unlikely case that both proposals pass, contributors will post a third governance vote in which “Yes” and “No” votes will represent the Osmosis and Neutron alignment proposals.

Given the forum discussion/proposal times for Neutron and Osmosis, we expect discussion will go on for ~3 weeks before we’re ready to post the governance proposals on-chain around the 26th of December.

We look forward to reading everyone’s thoughts on the proposals. Please keep it respectful and remember Mars will continue to have a long-term relationship with both protocols, regardless of the results of these proposals.


My take:

The Mars Protocol Foundation is in the fortunate position to have two competing (and very similar) offers from Osmosis and Neutron to move its hub to one of these chains. Likely this will come down to Mars governance vote for MARS holders and builders to decide which, if any, to accept.

The two offers are detailed on the Osmosis forum and the Neutron forum. I don’t want to get into the details of each, but I do want to explain my reasoning for how I’ll vote.

Firstly we are mainly talking about where to move the hub functionality. Mars v2 exists on Osmosis and that’s not going to change. So regardless of how this vote goes, I don’t want it to be perceived that Mars is abandoning one chain in favour of the other. It’s really just the hub, and most users don’t interact with the hub. Even if they do Mars should abstract the IBC stuff away so they don’t notice or care where it is.

If we do accept the Neutron proposal, Mars will build out v2 there, and deploy perps there first. Mars was going to launch v2 there anyway, and the restriction to not deploy perps anywhere else for three months is not significant - realistically perps wouldn’t be rolled out on two chains within three months anyway.

The Mars vision is an ambitious one - to offer lending, leverage spot trading, farming strategies and perps trading within a single intuitive app. It wants to rival the UX provided by FTX back in the day. It also should abstract away all the bridging complexity to allow users to deposit and use the app from any major chain/wallet. It should be an awesome product. But it’s a complex product, the vision can only be achieved by going deep into one or two chains.

But both Neutron and Osmosis are great places for Mars. They both have decent liquidity and trading volume. Osmosis has a big lead (though the gap is closing faster than some would think - Astroport on Neutron had about 50% of Osmosis’s trading volume yesterday). They also both have stated upcoming features which are synergistic to Mars onboarding users - Sunny’s talk at Cosmoverse was fantastic and totally aligns with what I’ve been ranting about for ages. Neutron has also put a lot of effort into their wstETH bridge,

I can go on about the pros and cons of each in terms of building out Mars v2 but I don’t think it matters really. Mars makes sense on both of these chains. There’s no need to choose one over the other.

What’s relevant to the hub is mainly that I see Osmosis as a product first and a platform second. I assume that most of the Osmosis dev effort will be towards the Osmosis product rather than on tools and services which help other apps building on Osmosis. That’s not a criticism, I actually think the Osmosis product is a fantastic UX for users.

Meanwhile I see Neutron as a platform first, I assume that their entire dev effort will be towards making Neutron a better place to build.

Also while Osmosis is a home it is also inconveniently a competitor. It seems likely they will also build perps, so placing the governance hub in a more neutral place seems the sensible choice to me.

It comes down to this. Mars Hub was based on some assumptions that turned out to be wrong. Mars should move the hub somewhere and the most suitable chain for that is Neutron. By accepting this proposal the Mars Protocol Foundation can get $3m to ensure its funding for the foreseeable future while doing more or less what it was going to do anyway.

Astroport faced a similar dilemma and my proposal was to choose Neutron. The reasoning here is the same - Neutron aims to be the hub for multichain Cosmos projects. Its tooling will reflect this I assume and in my view is the best suited for this task. So I will vote for the Neutron proposal and I only hope the way this is playing out does not push the Osmosis community or its visionary founder away.


Mars has recently taken the spotlight in Cosmos as it received offers from both Neutron and Osmosis. Which is a great position to be in for Mars and is a great compliment to all Mars contributors.

Naturally there has been a lot of discussion in the community about these proposals. I’ll share my thoughts on both and explain which option I favor.

For reference the proposals below.
Neutron: [DRAFT PROPOSAL] Make Neutron the home of Mars Protocol - Proposal Discussion - Neutron Forum

Osmosis: Make Osmosis the Home of Mars Protocol - Proposal Discussion - Osmosis Community Hall

It’s an honour to see 2 fantastic projects vying to host Mars Hub. Both teams and projects are incredibly important for the entire Cosmos ecosystem. I have nothing but respect for both teams and hope they’ll both crush it, regardless the outcome of this discussion.

To clarify, neither proposal excludes the existence of an outpost on either chain. Mars v2 is deployed on Osmosis and picking up traction. Public discord about Mars abandoning Osmosis in favor of Neutron is incorrect. Mars has and will have outposts on both Neutron and Osmosis, regardless of the outcome of these proposals. The proposal’s focus on where to move Mars Hub, priority and exclusivity. Both teams and chains are ace in their own ways, as such this is an extremely difficult decision.

What matters to me is where Mars can build the best product. As mentioned previously, I believe Mars is the most exciting DeFi app currently being built in the industry. As such I believe it’s key to be uncompromising on that vision when deciding where to deploy its home (governance) and where to focus the deployment of its outpost(s). Ideally Mars builds in an ecosystem which is synergistic and supportive of the mission and product.

Pros Osmosis

  • Superior deal; no exclusivity
  • If Mars was to build perps, it’d likely be quicker to market since Mars v2 is already deployed on Osmosis
  • Has users, has activity and a sizeable community
  • The leading AMM for Cosmos assets
  • Currently the DeFi hub of Cosmos
  • Sunny is a visionary. Unmatched in Cosmos and on-par with the best of the best in the broader industry.

Cons Osmosis

  • Doesn’t optimize for liveness. Eg. daily chain halts and the recent chain halt after the TIA token went live. This is an issue for a credit protocol and even more of an issue when leverage increases with perps.
  • Optimizes for what’s best for Osmosis DEX, not Osmosis the L1
    • Both a strength and a weakness for Osmosis.
    • Sub-optimal for Mars as there’s a misalignment
    • Not optimizing for liveness is a consequence of this. If it would treat the projects built on top as first class citizens, it’d address the liveness issues. But it hasn’t been made a priority.
  • Osmosis innovates quickly, which is great for Osmosis DEX. But can and has been detrimental for Osmosis the L1 and as such for Mars.

Pros Neutron

  • Chain level alignment
    • Projects built on Neutron are first class citizens since Neutron doesn’t have a competing product it prioritizes over the products deployed on its chain.
    • The Neutron team feels like a partial extension of the team
  • Astroport’s PCL pools
    • Osmosis’ active concentrated liquidity pools are sub-optimal for Mars’ “leveraged farming” product. Astroport’s PCL pools on the other hand are great. This is an important factor as Mars delivers on its vision and succeeds. It will drive a lot of liquidity and volume to the assets listed on the major AMM its outposts are deployed. Which in turn is synergistic with Mars’ “Farm” product, which utilizes that liquidity and deepens it.
  • If Mars contributors execute well, Mars will very likely become the flagship defi product of Neutron.
    • Which will only increase the chain level support Mars receives.
    • Which in turn could turn Mars into the main FE for the apps built on Neutron if the products built in the Neutron ecosystem are built in synergy with Mars (credit accounts)
  • The culture fit between the Neutron and Mars teams is very good (anecdotally)
  • Spaydh seems to be great at executing and focusing on the highest impact issues. Again this is anecdotal and the time period over which this was observed has only been a few months.

Cons Neutron

  • Few users, low activity, few apps, small community. This is to be expected since Neutron is relatively new. But it is nevertheless a risk.
  • Slightly worse deal. The 3 months exclusivity is a minor factor imo as it takes time to deploy major upgrades on different outposts.
  • It will likely take several weeks longer to get Mars v2 including potentially perps to market.

Osmosis is the safer bet in my eyes. Since Osmosis has a good chance of remaining the DeFi hub of Cosmos if Mars decided to prioritize it over the coming months. As a result in addition to Mars’ own success it’d benefit from Osmosis’ likely success and do very well during the coming bull market.

Neutron is the riskier bet. It still needs to prove itself and needs to build a new ecosystem from the ground up. There is a chance that despite Mars contributors executing perfectly, Neutron fails (to support Mars). In turn this could be detrimental to Mars’ mid to long-term success. On the other hand, mainly due to the superior alignment it has higher potential if both Mars and Neutron contributors execute well and succeed.

Mars has the potential to become an industry leading product. To achieve that it needs chain level alignment and a supportive, synergistic ecosystem to build in. On Neutron Mars is able to get this. As such I believe the odds of building a superior product on Neutron are significantly higher than that of Osmosis. Despite it being a slightly worse deal, I favor the Neutron offer.


I am a Frontend (FE) developer and a Mars contributor. I joined the Team in May 2021 and took part in many, if not most, of the decisions made for the Mars Protocol. After the Terra collapse, we decided to launch our app chain. It was designed to store our safety fund and have a solution for our governance needs. As we did on so many other decisions, we took a bet on the future of Cosmos and Krypto in general.

Now, we need to discuss whether we should retire the app chain, and I’m all for that for various obvious reasons. One is to stop inflation, and another is to decrease the maintenance work needed for the explorer and other Mars hub interfaces.

The next decision would be to decide where to move the MARS token needed for the protocol’s governance. I feel like this decision also answers the question of where the Mars Protocol contributors should concentrate their efforts when building new protocol features and treat it as their main chain.

I want to share my POV on the whole Neutron vs. Osmosis discussion:

As an FE dev, my focus is the UI and UX of the Mars Protocols outposts. With block times of ~3.5s on Neutron and ~6s on Osmosis, they are relatively similar and could be the same if both chains have the same traffic. It would not be reasonable to use this as a basis for a decision in terms of UX.

Both chains are also almost equally supported by Cosmos wallet extensions. Osmosis has a slight advantage, as its testnet has broader support from the most used wallet extensions. This is also not a reason to choose one over the other.

What has me voting in favor of Neutron is the daily epoch reward distribution mechanism that halts the Osmosis chain daily for a few minutes.
In my opinion, a chain that is inaccessible and unresponsive once a day is not the best home for a (hypothetical) perpetual trading platform.

I understand all the arguments brought up and agree with many of the arguments made by both (Neutron and Osmosis) supporters. But as we will have outposts on both chains. We will continue listing new assets, vaults, and strategies. And if it makes sense, launch new features on both chains. It doesn’t matter to the user where our governance is housed. It worked with mars-1, and it will also work with neutron-1 or osmosis-1.

But if I have to decide where to build daily, I’d go with Neutron over Osmosis just because of the daily epoch.


This is one of the hardest decisions I’ve been a part of since I started contributing to Mars 2.5+ years ago. Lots of reasons for that, but here are the main ones:

  1. I respect the hell out of the builders on both chains and want to see them both succeed wildly.
  2. We know the current state of the market (and which chains have the most market share) but the future is ultimately unknowable.

Despite Neutron’s nascency, I lean that way for a couple reasons:

  1. Neutron is permissionless. Anyone can deploy there without going through governance. That openness is one of the reasons I got into crypto. I want this industry to tear down all walls and allow anyone with an idea to immediately test it out in the wild. Maybe that’s not the approach that will ultimately win out, but it drives me philosophically.

  2. Exclusivity is a non-issue for me since dev capacity will be maxed out (assuming Mars contributors can indeed deploy perps). After perps have been out and stable for several months, then – when devs actually have the capacity – Mars could potentially deploy similar functionality on additional chains.

  3. I leave the dev side to the ones actually pushing code into Github, but Neutron has deep security guarantees (at current $ATOM MC) and most importantly more liveness/uptime, which becomes truly critical should Mars deploy perps.

  4. Growth potential on Neutron feels massive. The burgeoning AEZ and the ability to quickly deploy apps on Neutron makes me think it could experience extraordinary growth.

Ultimately, I’m excited that contributors can move the Hub to another chain, shut off excessive emissions and focus entirely on the end product. Whatever happens, I want Mars to be useful and innovative and lift up all of the Cosmos wherever traders want to trade :fist:


This is a tough one but I made my decision.

Both proposals have their merits, and as a community builder, my focus is on where our community can grow, thrive, and where Mars Protocol can best serve its users. Osmosis has a substantial user base, liquidity, and is a testament to the thriving DeFi activity within Cosmos, which Mars Protocol is already tapping into. Neutron presents an exciting opportunity for growth and alignment with a platform that is building an ecosystem conducive to Mars Protocol’s long-term vision.

The Neutron proposal offers a strategic alignment that could accelerate our presence and influence in the Cosmos ecosystem. Their commitment to being a platform first gives us a neutral ground to build on without the shadow of competing with a native project. Their rapid traction in the market and the shared vision gives confidence in their ability to execute and support Mars Protocol as we expand.

On the other hand, Osmosis is the present DeFi hub of Cosmos, and our current activity there can’t be overlooked. Their proposal offers us a good deal of flexibility without exclusivity constraints, which means we can continue to innovate freely across chains.

In conclusion, while both offers are financially similar and beneficial, I believe Neutron’s platform-centric approach and their commitment to supporting Mars as a flagship project slightly tip the scales. They offer a fertile ground for Mars to plant its roots deeply into the Cosmos ecosystem, ensuring we can build a robust and engaged community. Furthermore, their focus on infrastructure and developer tools will be invaluable as we look to refine and expand our offerings.

Therefore, I advocate for a deeper engagement with the Neutron community, to leverage their growing ecosystem and alignment with our ethos, ensuring Mars Protocol remains at the forefront of DeFi innovation in Cosmos. I believe that by choosing Neutron, we are not just choosing a blockchain platform; we are choosing an additional collaborative partner to stand alongside Mars’ existing Osmosis outpost.


Appreciate all contributors’ points and glad to see this happening. It truly seems there is an alignment between the Mars’ community, builders and Neutron.

1 Like

Hi, I’ve found this conversation very insightful. Helped me to better understand how different stakeholders are positioning Osmosis and Neutron.

A point that was made that isn’t related to the tech or market sizing was the one quoted below. I’m curious to understand what is meant here:

1 Like

@Linkielink if Osmosis dev team could commit to eliminating the epoch time entirely by end of January, would that change your opinion?


@redphone if Osmosis were to activate permissionless contracts (as proposed here), would that change your opinion?

1 Like

I would like to point out that Neutron’s exclusivity clause applies to not just the initial deployment of perps, but all new features indefinitely.

Fast forward a year, when other Cosmos DeFi ecosystems doesn’t materialize to the same magnitude as Osmosis’s (as Levana learned the hard way), and Mars would like to double down on its Osmosis outpost, Mars is now stuck for perpetuity in a situation where it can’t deploy updates to its most important outpost without a perpetual 3 month delay.


Hey everyone!

I just want to start by saying that I really appreciate that this forum discussion and potential proposal process was put forward. I want to thank @jose_delphi and the rest of the Mars contributors for electing to make these decisions in the open as part of a democratic gov process. I support the proposed format with one caveat: It might be nice to run the final voting process after the new year to ensure maximum attendance by Mars stakeholders. I understand that Mars contributors will pretty much carry the vote here either way (as it probably should be since this will determine where you spend most of your resources), but in the event that the contributor votes are split, the remaining staked MARS tokens may swing it, and I feel it’s important to try to get as many people out to vote as possible (especially given the short voting period on the Mars Hub).

Now, on to the substantive portion of the debate. As a medium-sized (five figures, USD) MARS holder and staker, I have a question, and then a few comments aimed at areas that haven’t been addressed by any of the contributors’ comments thus far.

I’ll start with the question as it’s pretty low lift:

  • Under Neutron’s proposal, does the exclusivity provision apply only to new feature launches (perps, etc), or will it also apply to things like new collateral listings as well? If it does, I anticipate a significantly more impacted user-experience on the Mars outpost on Osmosis than there would be if this were limited to feature launches. As this would be applicable to potential future outposts as well, this would be giving up quite a lot vs the Osmosis proposal.

As for my comments, the Mars contributors have made perfectly clear so far that Osmosis has a far larger userbase and activity, more lindy, and is far less risky of a choice in terms of product prioritization, so I won’t rehash all of those comments. There are a few things that I think are being significantly underexamined as risks with Neutron though:

Competition Risk

Neutron’s proposal seeks exclusivity from Mars, but does not offer exclusivity in return. As has been mentioned here, Neutron is permissionless, and it’s exceedingly likely that many money markets and perps products will deploy there. In the event that one or more of those products attracts significant traction, Neutron will be highly incentivized to allocate resources to and prioritize those competitive products.

A lot of ink has already been spilled on Osmosis and Mars being potentially competitive, but it’s almost been assumed that this would not be the case on Neutron. As with the proposal to merge Duality with Neutron (which is almost certain to siphon a huge amount of market share from Astroport), Neutron will do what it needs to do in order to attract the most users, as it will rely on a massive ecosystem of diverse applications being used frequently in order for its revenue model to become viable.

Osmosis, on the other hand, has alternative revenue models in place to support long-term sustainability thanks to years of lessons on overincentivization based on mistakes that Neutron is currently in the process of repeating. Osmosis can afford to be more discerning and focus on core products and integrators like Mars. This feels like a good opportunity to remind everyone that Osmosis abandoned its own native lending product in order to support that functionality through Mars instead. Osmosis is incentivized to continue that support and integrate any competing solutions built on the L1 such that they’re all prioritized.

Cosmos Hub Governance Risk

I’ve seen ICS and Neutron’s position as a consumer chain touted as a benefit in passing this proposal in favor of Neutron. While potentially true, this poses risks of its own.

The Cosmos Hub is struggling to attract value of its own, and is increasingly taking steps in that direction that could present a risk to Neutron’s long-term sustainability. For example, I personally feel that the Hub will have Cosmwasm natively integrated in some form in the mid-term future. This action in and of itself will likely make Neutron a far less valuable place to deploy.

The Cosmos Hub could take any other action at any time that could create an existential crisis for Neutron and the applications developing on it. A great example of this is the proposed Stride merger. Had this gone through, any hope of Lido gaining significant market share in Cosmos would likely have been eliminated (or at least made significantly more challenging). In the event of something like this happening, as @sunnya97 mentions:

Not to mention that Osmosis will have no choice but to fully prioritize competing products were this scenario to occur in order to foster further growth of defi on its platform and iterate quickly. This is why Neutron’s is the riskier proposal. If this bet doesn’t pan out, it will be much harder to shift focus and recover from, whereas if Osmosis were to lose relevance, this wouldn’t be the case.

Another risk-factor is the social pressure incumbent in prioritizing consumer chains in BD efforts as a member of the AEZ. If the Cosmos Hub onboards a consumer chain lending or perps product, there’s a high likelihood that Neutron will shift a large degree of focus toward that lending product. Failing to do so may mean compromising the ATOM community that makes up the bulk of its userbase right now.

A quick note on liveness

I noticed that Neutron’s “liveness guarantees” have been a large topic of discussion here so I just wanted to quickly address this as well. There are two aspects to this:

  1. Osmosis’s daily epoch (a brief 7ish minute block once daily that doesn’t halt the chain but does give latency to transactions that are the functional equivalent of a halt).

  2. The recent transaction spam that has flooded Osmosis’s mempools in times of high volume, resulting in transactions being unable to get through.

With respect to the epoch, this is solvable, should have been solved long ago, and I’m super glad to see that the Osmosis development arm is willing to commit to a concrete date to solve it if it helps move the needle here

As far as the mempool spam, it’s extremely important to note that this is possible on any Cosmos chain currently, including Neutron and the Hub. Osmosis has fallen victim to it (imo) precisely because it currently houses perps and lending markets, making latency profitable, whereas other chains like Neutron do not. Once they do, I fully expect to see similar instances of mempool spam on Neutron / the Hub. The only difference is that Osmosis has already spent significant resources on mempool optimizations to reduce or eliminate entirely any instances of mempool spam. Neutron will have to go through these growing pains themselves, potentially at Mars’ expense.


As a MARS holder, as well as a significant holder of OSMO who would like to see Mars’ Osmosis outpost continue to innovate and play a leading role in Osmosis DeFi, I think launching the hub on Osmosis is the play here. The upside is massive, the risks of doing so are relatively small, whereas the risks of failing to do so are potentially existential in nature for Mars if Neutron doesn’t get the adoption that contributors hope it will.

1 Like

Would have a huge impact for me personally! Target date on ending epochs would be amazing as well. Guess my last concern would be the more nebulous idea that Neutron has more bandwidth to prioritize collaboration/any necessary upgrades to see us both succeed.

I would have no reason to choose Neutron over Osmosis if this happens. So yes, this would have me vote for Osmosis as the home of the Mars Hub.

As far as I understood the exclusivity clause is not including updates to the outpost. Only possible features like perps, accounts marketplace, transfer between accounts and so on. It does not include asset listing, listings of vaults and new hls strategies as well as UX/UI upgrades. As the outpost share the same deployment on all chains it would not be feasible for us to build an upgrade of UI on one chain and block it on the other.


My take:

First - it’s important to mention that this is just my opinion as a contributor and each contributor will ultimately vote for what they believe to be right.

With that out of the way, I will start by stating the obvious: Both teams are strong and I am super bullish on both chains.

Most importantly, accepting one proposal over another should absolutely not be seen as Mars leaving any of the two chains. Our plan has always been to be the leverage layer of any chain that has DeFi activity and a need for leverage. That has not changed - and we are strongly committed to both outposts.

The two competing proposals are exactly the same in terms of economics, but one has an exclusivity clause attached to it, while the other does not.

Moving Mars Hub: The reasons for Mars to move its hub I think are quite clear, as it is providing very little value to Mars holders while slowly diluting them via inflation necessary to pay validators a sufficient amount of Mars to be worth securing the chain. By moving Mars Hub Governance to an outpost - Mars doesn’t have to dilute holders with inflation and does not have to maintain a chain that at this point is not providing much value.
Why do both chains want Mars Hub? It has most likely to do with increased TVL due to Mars staked on their chain as well as where Mars will be traded (so transaction volume). I would be lying if this also didn’t affect the perception of a chain from the outside. If Mars were to thrive, the chain hosting its Hub would result in a better Status.

Exclusivity: While this is not ideal, it is not necessarily as bad as it sounds. The clause here states that 3m have to pass before a feature can be released elsewhere. It’s also important to note that this only applies to “key features” (so won’t include things like token listings, vault integrations, minor UI improvements, etc.). And it will last for the 2y duration of the transaction.
The reason why I don’t think this is super important is because regardless of which proposal we’ll accept, the Mars team will be able to execute its full vision first on that chain. The complexity of deploying on two chains a really deep product makes the time restriction of 3m not very relevant. As mentioned earlier - ultimately Mars v2 will be on both chains and tailored to the specific needs of each one, as well as available primitives.

The decision on picking one vs the other in my opinion is a matter of where we believe we can build the best Product first. This of course has much to do with time to market, market timing, execution risk as well as overall team alignments.

Without going too much into the details of each of these - I believe Osmosis is a chain with a very forward-looking leadership team that has great ideas - many of which are driven to build product features. Examples being their DEX, CL and an hypothetical on-chain perps implementation. While Neutron aims to be more a general purpose chain that wants to support with the best possible infrastructure the projects that build on top of it. Neutron also has a very talented execution / focused team.

The other element to consider is activity & community. Of course this matters. Osmosis has a very vibrant & passionate community and is undoubtedly the most active Hub of the Cosmos. In a way going deep on Osmosis first is a less risky bet. Because the community has shown to be open minded and excited to try new primitives / ideas. While Neutron is a younger chain and will need to build up to what Osmosis has achieved so far. Needless to say, the signs are promising, but of course it is not there yet.

Being a Product-first person - I believe that Neutron’s posture is more aligned with Mars vision. And that ultimately my bet is that it would allow us to build a better product in less time. However, I do realize that this is a riskier bet but nevertheless one worth taking.

1 Like

Not indefinitely. Only for the duration of the proposal (2 years). Also it involves only new “Major Features”. Which would take anyway probably more than 3m to deploy anywhere else. Things like Vault Integrations, Asset Listings, Risk Params adjustments, etc. Are not included.
Clearly better not to have exclusivity at all. But just wanted to be clear about the terms.

1 Like

Hey - it only applies to “major protocol upgrades”. If you look at “Annex E” (Below) , it becomes quite clear it is only for significant upgrades. So things like perps could be considered one, but anything that has to do with new listings, risk params adjustments, vault integrations, ui improvements, etc. It’s not within the scope of the agreement.

Maintenance Carveouts

Ongoing maintenance on Outposts outside of Neutron will be excluded from being considered a ‘major protocol upgrade’. These include:

  • Asset Listings & Delisting (Both Individual Tokens as well as Vaults)
  • Risk Parameters Updates & Changes
  • Vault Integrations
  • Or any other items as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties

This “chain halt” was caused by a misdesign in the Cosmos SDK mempool that is present in almost every Cosmos SDK chain. The Osmosis team has taken the first steps of multiple steps in fixing this with the implementation of a chain-level EIP1559 style solution and the coordination of multiple wallets to integrate said solution.

I’m not aware of the issue being patched on Neutron yet.


Could you expand on these points? Why do you think a better product could be built in less time on Neutron?