We have curated a list of the current top wallets to store and delegate your Cosmos Atoms from. Before diving into the options, I would like to remark that the safest way to store larger amounts of Atoms is on a hardware wallet. There are multiple wallets and tools that allow you to send, delegate, and participate in governance using a Ledger device. But let’s start with our list:
Lunie is the official wallet that was first developed by part of the Cosmos team (then called Voyager). The Lunie team has now spun off as a separate company.
Lunie is available as a web and mobile wallet (in development). There’s also a Lunie browser extension that allows you to securely generate keys. Lunie enables you to safely perform every operation from sending to participating in governance through your Ledger device without having to download additional software.
Find out more at: https://lunie.io/
Evaluation
+ Security audit
+ Web wallet usable with Ledger devices and browser extension
- Mobile wallet can’t store keys yet (in development)
The popular multi-asset mobile wallet with support for ETH, BTC, EOS also has a Cosmos wallet. imToken supports a lot of functions like exchanging tokens, using DApps and now also storing and staking your Cosmos Atoms!
+ Multiple Assets (BTC, EOS, as well as Ethereum and Cosmos assets)
+ Many functionalities (token exchange inside the wallet, DApp support,…)
+ Available on both iOS and Android
+ Security audit
Trust Wallet, the open-source multi-currency mobile wallet, has its own staking platform that also includes Cosmos. The platform allows you to stake from the mobile Trust Wallet application (iOS and Android), as well as from Ledger devices or other wallets that support WalletConnect.
Evaluation
+ Multiple ways to access (Ledger, Trust Wallet, WalletConnect)
+ Support for multiple currencies and applications
- Only supporting a subset of validators and features
This slick mobile wallet is developed by the Korean team at Cosmostation, who also run their own validator and block explorer. The wallet is available as a web wallet, as well as on the Apple App Store and Google Play.
+ Great design and UX
+ Amount of information and features
+ Available on desktop as well as mobile (iOS and Android)
- No security audit
Another mobile wallet from the Chinese team at WeTez, who are already experienced in staking on Tezos. They also operate a validator on the Cosmos network and educate the Chinese community around the staking ecosystem.
+ Support for Cosmos, IRISnet and Tezos
+ Available on both iOS and Android
- No security audit
- No governance features and little information in the interface
There are a variety of tools build by validators to allow for easy staking and governance participation using a Ledger device. These include delegating through the Hubble and Stargazer block explorer and the delegation tool from our colleagues at Staking Facilities, as well as our own tool. The Chorus One tool additionally allows delegators to participate in governance themselves.
+ Easy to use
- Limited features and only Ledger devices supported
There are a variety of wallet options available already today. We recommend storing large Atom amounts on a Ledger device. To do so you will need to have the Cosmos application installed on your Ledger device using Ledger Live. There are also some other wallets in development (e.g. IOV and Lunagram). We are looking forward to trying these out and seeing the wallets and tools mentioned in this article evolve.
Originally published at https://blog.chorus.one on April 26, 2019.
In a post on the Loom blog, I recently wrote about the disruptive potential of crypto in gaming. Loom is not alone in making the realization that gaming is the perfect match for crypto. There are many other teams that aim to achieve what Loom does in different ways. Additionally, Loom faces competition from general purpose blockchains and specialized marketplace platforms for NFT assets.
On the other hand, Loom has already delivered a lot of value and many developers have started to build their decentralized gaming and other applications using the Loom framework. In many ways there are also synergies between “competing” projects.
In this post, I will shortly introduce a few of the main adjacent projects and games that are building on Loom. The whole list of companies in our crypto gaming ecosystem map (pictured below) can be found in our full thesis document on the Loom Network.
The main competitors to Loom are other projects that aim to cater to the same use case as Loom: enabling scalable blockchain gaming. One of the main competitors here is the team at Fuel Games, the creators of games like Gods Unchained that is also building a platform to integrate decentralized assets in games at scale, leveraging state channel technology to ensure high throughput while maintaining low transaction costs.
Another area where Loom is competing in is the area of marketplaces for collectibles and in-game assets (NFTs). E.g. Enjin, who is also starting to compete with Loom on the platform level with their SDK and sidechain network Efinity, is known for their marketplace of in-game assets. Enjin already managed to foster a large community through their wallet and token.
Other competitors of Loom’s marketplace notably include OpenSea and RareBits, both of which provide an interface to browse and trade digital items.
More broadly, the Loom Network as a scaling solution competes with any other project that aims to bring scale to decentralized applications. These include other Ethereum layer-2 solutions that take similar approaches, e.g. Plasma-based efforts like those by SKALE, Matic, or LeapDAO. Any general purpose blockchain implicitly competes with Loom in a way, including Ethereum itself.
Additionally, well-funded general purpose blockchains are also involved in the gaming ecosystem. Examples include EOS and Mythical Games and TRON Arcade, a $100 million commitment by the TRON Foundation to fund blockchain gaming.
Loom is trying to establish as a hub in the emerging network of blockchains by enabling interoperability between their and other major blockchain ecosystems, such as EOS, TRON, and Cosmos. In our interview with Matthew Campbell, this topic was discussed at length. I recommend giving it a listen if you’re interested in hearing about Loom’s strategy from the CEO himself.
Overall the blockchain gaming field is highly contested, and many of the first decentralized applications that saw some adoption have been games ( CryptoKitties). In the face of the alternatives mentioned above, the Loom Network has managed to attract many interesting projects to their platform. Part of this can be traced back to their commitment to build educational resources and tools that they themselves use to develop their own blockchain games. This strategy of the Loom team and their technologies will be covered in detail in another post, in the following I will introduce four games that are currently being built on the Loom Network:
This trading card game is developed by Loom’s in-house game studio utilizing the tools and running on the technologies built by the team itself. As the name suggests, the game plays in a setting where undead creatures battle each other.
The game features Hearthstone-like mechanics with players using decks consisting of (NFT) game cards to defeat their opponents in short, round-based battles. The game is available on iOS, Android, and Steam.
One of the most well-known games being developed on Loom. The game allows you to breed, level up, and equip fantasy creatures (Axies). Axies can also battle other players in the Arena, or go on an adventure together in the story mode.
The world in which Axies live (Lunacia) is controlled by the players. There’s a land sale going on currently in which 25% of the land in Lunacia and various items will be distributed to players.
This strategy game is developed by Experimental and lets players build an empire and an army to try and conquer other players’ empires. The game is completely browser-based with little animated graphics. Players earn resources by building mines and other structures, which can then be used to recruit soldiers to fight.
They are frequently hosting competitions where the best players receive a price, check here for more info.
Neon District is a cypherpunk RPG developed by Blockade Games in which players collect and craft items to fight against evil in a dystopian setting.
Learn more about the game and the “Founder’s Sale” here.
Chorus One is operating a validator on the Loom Network. You can support us by staking your Loom tokens with us and be rewarded for helping to maintain the network. If you’re interested in staying informed about our content around staking and the networks we validate on, follow us on Twitter or join our mailing list below.
Originally published at https://blog.chorus.one on April 16, 2019.
This is Part 2 of a series of posts. Part 1 can be found here.
We often see the term “network effect” in technology discussions. In common usage, the term can be misused to imply a natural tendency for networks to add value to all users as they grow. But this is not always the case.
Firstly, there are many different types of network effects, each with different characteristics and differing strengths. One thing that is often overlooked is that network effects can sometimes be negative and, in fact, sometimes both positive and negative effects can co-exist in the same network. An effect is positive when more people using the network gives everyone access to more value. But a broadband or mobile network may have negative network effects, where more users may lead to more congestion. We see something similar in a social network, where noisy content feeds caused by user growth can make it harder to find quality content. In a marketplace, more sellers result in more competition for other sellers (negative), but more products for buyers (positive), which in turn leads to more buyers which is good for all sellers (positive). This specific example is called an indirect network effect. The NFX venture fund has an amazing collection of essays on network effects here: https://www.nfx.com/essays.
In this post, we’ll show why network effects are so important in Cosmos. The main reason is that Cosmos is not just a network: it’s a network of networks. Each sub-network has its own network effects which will interact with each other. When Ebay started they could focus on one network: buyers and sellers in a marketplace. Likewise for Uber: drivers and commuters. The Cosmos Hub has at least three types of network effects at launch.
NFX defines two-sided platform network effects as follows:
“… 2-Sided Platform nfx … the supply side actually engineers products that are only available on the platform. The supply side has to do work to integrate to the platform. The products created and sold by the suppliers are a function of the platform, not independent of it.”
At first glance, it may seem that Cosmos SDK fits into this classification. Developers build apps as the supply side, with app users as the demand side. And these apps are “not independent of the platform”. So this looks like a typical developer platform such as iOS, Windows, or Xbox. Here we can see that Cosmos is a platform.
But… NFX also define protocol network effects that “arise when a communications or computational standard is declared and all nodes and node creators can plug into the network using that protocol”.
When we look at Cosmos this way our focus is on its ability to become a global standard for inter-blockchain communication, much like TCP/IP powers the internet or VHS became the video standard. So Cosmos is also a protocol.
Another perspective on Cosmos focuses on resource provision. We can look at Cosmos as having two-sided marketplace network effects, with validators providing computational resources on one side and app developers paying for these resources (either directly or by passing the costs onto their end users) on the other side. In fact, we can also see a second two-sided marketplace, with delegators as resource providers providing capital and validators as the demand-side, providing security and a safe return on that capital. So, from this perspective, Cosmos consists of two back-to-back two-sided marketplaces.
For Cosmos to succeed, each of these three classes of network effects (platform, protocol, and marketplace) need to strongly reinforce each other. They will each come into play at different phases in the growth of Cosmos.
As a platform, the focus needs to be on growing the developer community. The Cosmos community will need to build out the best tooling for developers to build, deploy and support applications. It will need to be cost-effective for developers to get their apps into production and in use. The community needs to create the best forums for the community of developers, sharing sample code, supporting each other, updating documentation etc.
But it’s also important that the validators and delegators help to build developer and user confidence in the network, by securing the infrastructure, avoiding network downtime and improving overall resiliency. Cosmos validators will need to work together to ensure that as the first apps take off, the user experience is on par with centralized services like AWS and other centralized networks. The network must also remain cost-competitive so that developers and users are not put off by high fees, while maintaining high enough rewards to support world-class infrastructure providers and to provide competitive risk-adjusted yields for delegators, especially in light of competing investment opportunities in the decentralized finance (DeFi) space. This is why the effectiveness of the marketplace mechanisms are so important.
But the Cosmos vision of multi-token services and the interoperability of chains will become increasingly important over time. This is where protocol network effects become increasingly important. While each effect can be built up over time, all three are mutually self-reinforcing. An early win with a multi-token service, even one with low transaction volumes, could have a meaningful impact on the long-term chances of the Cosmos Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) Protocol becoming the de facto standard for token exchange. But if there were weak rewards for validators or a high number of slashing events (causing weak delegator returns), this could start to negatively impact the quality of the network infrastructure thus damaging the long-term potential of IBC and weakening the attractiveness of Cosmos as a developer platform.
What is especially interesting is the relative strength of each network effect. Platform effects are weaker than protocol network effects. This is because developers love nothing more than trying out new tools and platforms, as is evidenced by the huge number of developer libraries and frameworks. Right now this is a strength for Cosmos, as Ethereum developers are more likely to experiment with a new platform. But even though platform effects are weaker, they can still provide an advantage, so it’s important for Cosmos to build an effective community of developers helping each other, contributing to tools, videos, Q&A forums etc. This will serve to strengthen the overall proposition, giving itself more time to build out the stronger protocol effects.
In summary, Cosmos is a network of network effects. If these network effects can reinforce each other, this could make Cosmos more powerful than any protocol, platform or marketplace that has previously existed. But it requires a delicate balance. It will be an exciting experiment!
Stay tuned for more in this Internet of Blockchain series, where we dive into staking economics, value capture, governance and more.
Follow us on Twitter and join our Telegram and mailing list to find out more.
Originally published at blog.chorus.one on April 8, 2019.
Stable Cosmos Hub mainnet without transfers
Clearly specified and decentralized upgrade process
New release for testnet with transfer feature enabled and other parameters such as the block size updated
Stable testnet with new release software
Phase I: a vote on a proposal specifying a plan and the criteria that need to be achieved for transfers to be enabled
Phase II: an expedited vote on the exact git hash for the updated software and block height for when the upgrade will take place
Chorus One is in favor of enabling transfers as quick as possible, as this is an essential feature of any blockchain network and because we want to encourage a wider distribution of Atom holders that isn’t limited to fundraiser participants. We believe the state of the mainnet proves the readiness of the network to enable transfers.
At the same time, we are aware that a new software release that will change parameters like the block size needs to be tested before migrating to mainnet. Additionally, we support a clearly defined process that allows for a decentralized upgrade to happen. Finally, we believe the integrity of the chain and the decision-making needs to be independently verifiable in the future, which is why a formalized governance process should be followed and the state of the old chain (cosmoshub-1) needs to be preserved adequately.
These requirements call for a two-step upgrade process where the first proposal is there to decide on what is planned and the second one is targeting a specific release that should match what was described in the first proposal.
The proposal at hand describes such a two-step process and it also plans to modify the parameters needed for the second proposal to pass. We support the current proposal including the 24-hour expedited governance rule for the second stage.
Some validators have suggested that there should be separate proposals: One on the general governance process and another one on the specific issue. We view the governance process of this proposal as an experiment and limited for this particular proposal. After this, we will have data to see whether this process is sound or a different governance process should be adopted. At that time, it will make sense to have a separate governance vote to decide on a general governance process. But to hold off enabling transfers at this point would be misguided, in our view.
The expedited governance rule states that a proposal may be deemed to have passed if ⅔ +1 of the bonded stake has voted in favor of the proposal for a continuous duration of 24 hours (after a buffer period of 24 hours passed). We think this is a reasonably secure way of ensuring that the plans from the first phase of an upgrade have been met in the second phase of the upgrade and that the proposal is actually supported by a majority of both validators and Atom holders delegating their stake.
We think the data from an abandoned chain should persist in an independently verifiable way in the genesis file of the new chain. The current proposed solution relies on trusting external identities to provide this data, which we believe is not sustainable. Chorus One will store cosmoshub-1 state data and encourages other validators to do the same to have as many entities as possible verifying the data that will be included in the genesis file of a future upgrade.
Chorus One is voting “Yes” on this proposal to enable transfers on the Cosmos Hub. We do view it as a desirable guideline that most proposals should cover only a single issue in the future.
Should the testnet with the new software release be unstable, or other problems emerge, we may vote no for the second proposal. We will follow the development of the testnet closely and will provide updates on our social channels.
If you want to vote yourself because you disagree with the voting choice of your validator(s), you can use the governance tool available on our website which allows you to cast your own vote that will overwrite all your validators’ decisions. Join our Telegram to discuss this issue further and make sure to subscribe to our social channels to be informed about future proposals and our evaluation of them.
An Overview of Cosmos Hub Governance
Transfer Enablement Proposal #1 & #2
Tendermint Recommendation to Decline Proposal #1
Forum Discussion on Proposal #2
Originally published at blog.chorus.one on April 4, 2019.
.png)
