Lisa,
Thanks for the response and addressing my concerns. I overlooked funding from staking rewards, and I understand that this proposal is better than the affected victims receiving nothing.
As mentioned in the initial proposal, 600k of the hacked funds were on Shade contracts, e.g. WETH used as collateral to mint Silk. I don’t know how funds will be distributed between Shade and other hacked users, and I don’t expect that to be covered in this proposal. But this further complicates the remediation plan, since I assume SNF will need to coordinate with Shade to do this, and Shade will have to find a way to partially distribute the funds over time.
I appreciate that this proposal doesn’t carve out holders like the proposal to move to Arbitrum. It would be helpful if you could address the potential ecosystem risks of staying on Cosmos as brought up in that proposal. i.e., that proposal argues that builders have been migrating away from Cosmos, and this exposes an additional risk from tools and infrastructure that’s abandoned or unmaintained.
I assume the main reason for keeping Secret Network on Cosmos is that the existing tooling, infrastructure, and stakeholder base (validators, users, exchange listings) would be costly and time-consuming to migrate properly. Is that the core rationale, or is there more to it?