There is a little bit of a drama going on in the Cosmos ecosystem right now. I know, this is a pleonasm, there's _always_ drama in the Cosmos ecosystem. But it's one of the very few _good_ dramas out there, in the sense that it leads to healthy communication, which in turn leads to healthy measures, which in turn leads to a more powerful and resilient ecosystem.
So, what's the problem these days?
A part of the ecosystem is of the opinion that Cosmos Hub, the blockchain governed through the ATOM token, should implement CosmWasm (a smart contract engine) in its next upgrade. At the moment, Cosmos Hub is just a... err... hub. A place for onboarding users in the ecosystem, which is also, lately, adding interchain security. So the hub plays one role, it onboard users and secures the ecosystem.
Using IBC, an interchain communication protocol (similar in approach with TCP/IP, for those old enough to remember how Internet started) all the other chains in the Cosmos ecosystem can communicate with the hub, and with each other. That allows a lot of specialization. Furthermore, Interchain Accounts also allow the execution of transactions on a different blockchain, using the same account. Pretty neat, huh?
I confess I initially voted "Yes" to the proposal, thinking that CosmWasm would be a good addition to Cosmos Hub. More muscles, huh? Should be a good thing, huh?
Then the drama erupted and I started to understand the implications better (that's why I say this is good drama).
So, I turned around my vote to a "No with Veto", and that is based on the following rationale.
If CosmWasm is added to the hub, a lot of existing functionality may be replicated on it. I can easily see how in a matter of hours DEXes, DeFi platforms and NFT marketplaces will be deployed on it.
First, this will create confusion (which is the "true" DeFi, DEX, etc").
Second, it will dilute the value of the existing dApps (they are in two places now).
And third, it will create a "one general to rule them all" model.
A single point of failure increases dramatically the vulnerability. That's not good.
The initial vision of the Cosmos ecosystem was an Internet of blockchains. That means you should have a blockchain (or an ecosystem of related blockchains inside the bigger Cosmos ecosystem) doing search, like Google. Another one doing video, like YouTube, and countless others doing each their own thing. Of course, we're talking about different features in crypto, not necessary search, video or social media, but this is a good example.
Imagine what would happen if all your search, all your video streaming, all your social media interaction will happen on one huge platform. For those a bit more awake, this is already happening in some parts of the world. Those parts are named China. And they are big fans of "fat" apps, like WeChat, which includes payment, social media and whatnot.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like to spend my life in an authoritarian system modeled after China (especially since I already experienced that model for the first 19 years of my life, so I know what I'm talking about).
So, in all honesty, I trust more 10 different, small, but really smart guys teaming up, than one extra powerful dude.
Because, you see, as the extra powerful dude becomes more and more powerful, he will start getting all sort of weird ideas.