OIP-4: Implementing Replicated Security for a More Robust and Expansive Ecosystem

I think these security changes are good and needed.

1 Like

Es importante tener la seguridad para los validadores y quienes otorgamos el poder en ellos.
Con esto podemos mejorar significativamente en la confianza y en los validadores que estan en la red.

I agree, the arrival of more validators seems fundamental to me, or else that they have this decentralized system to maintain the security of the chain, in addition to the fact that this generates greater confidence and security for me. That is, more security options proposed by different groups of people, all contributing from their team, for the

common benefit. :nerd_face:

I consider it extremely important to raise these issues in advance of an unexpected or ill-intentioned event, as always, the community ensuring the good of the project :owl:


Security is the most important problem of today, as technology has developed so much and is a part of our daily lives. Glad to hear that onomy is working on this.


Interchain security offers a more robust and secure environment for app chains without the need for independent validator management


great, give rewards to the participants, it’s more interesting

Overall, the Interchain Security Upgrade proposed in OIP-4 seems like a promising development for the Onomy Protocol. However, as with any proposed upgrade, it is important to evaluate it carefully and thoroughly test it before implementation to ensure its security and effectiveness.


Good, Interest in blockchain will grow if networks can provide security

Yep! It is very interesting and useful. Security is one the most important things today, as technology has developed so much and is a part of our daily lives. Glad to hear that Onomy Protocol is working on this problem.

1 Like

Good afternoon! Excellent proposal for the clients of this great project, which seeks to revolutionize the operation and make a difference in blockchains, which will help in the development of this industry. We are very excited about the future of Cross-Chain Security in the Onomy Network and its great launch, I just hope that it seeks partnerships with other chains that are currently developing well such as arbitrum and optimus

1 Like

I like the idea, if a new project needs to decide between Cosmos Hub (CH) or Onomy, probably CH is a better option, so we need to be more competitive, cheap and as much security as possible.

But Onomy needs to improve the price a bit, so it’s more difficult to achieve a possible 51% attack, if a malicious person/account wants to take down the protocol, if the provider chain is down, the consumer chain will also be down, so it’s more “rewarding” to attack a provider chain, because it will also affect the consumer chain. It would be more difficult to attack CH, because the malicious person/account must invest 1.5 billion just to reach 50% of CH, but for onomy it would be much less. In case of an attack to the provider, the consumer chains will also be affected.

Maybe a possible solution is to offer the new project that want Onomy security is to become a Validator, so the new project is part of the Onomy security, we have more NOMs spreaded in new hands (so it’s harder to have the control of the 51%), with an OTC trade between Onomy and the new project, Onomy gives NOM to the new project so they can create a new validator and Onomy receives their token or a stablecoin.

1 Like

Hey Pandidav,

Thanks for sparking up this discussion! Here’s the thing: the DAO’s treasury holdings of NOM and the total token allocation just don’t offer enough muscle in circulation to launch a 51% attack. Now, there’s always this slim chance that our validators could join forces for some shady business, but that’s a long shot because they’re all sitting on hefty self-bonds from their personal NOM purchases. Basically, they’d be shooting themselves in the foot, and they joined the set for belief in Onomy’s overarching vision that they themselves contribute to! It’s way too early.

Incentives are the name of the game here. The more we understand this, the better we’ll navigate the crypto world. However, what would add an extra layer of security is more validators on deck! That’s something the DAO should really think about, maybe even roll out some red carpet to welcome more pro validators on board. However, there’s some tradeoffs with very large validator sets and consumer chains… I’ll explain that in a subsequent post.

For now, consider this proposal enabling top-notch consumer appchains coming on board Onomy’s ecosystem. This could not only beef up incentives for more validators joining the OVG parent chain, but also give our community a big-time boost. So I’m seeing a future where successful consumer chains aren’t just passengers, they’re helping steer this ship towards massive ecosystem growth. To see it happen real-time in the depth of a stagnant bear market with market volumes down 80% is all the reason to show how resilient Onomy is.

1 Like

Thank you for your great explaination Lalo ! I like this OIP-4 idea and I agree with everything you said. Onomy indeed needs new validatos, for more security and more NOMs locked, I like the idea to invite the consumer chain to become an Onomy Validator, so they can have a voice in Onomy DAO. So it’s a great OIP.

some great points from many contributors above ; ) I have heard of cosmos protocols exploring a mesh security concept- as in using the validator sets from a few or multiple chains to increase the cost of attacks for bad actors. Also another cosmos project called babylon proposes to use the security of bitcoin itself to make attacks as difficult to execute as attacking bitcoin itself, the point here is this replicated security model is the future and many solutions already exist for customizing things as a project grows its security needs in line with the growth of the cosmos eco system.

Not going to lie, I feel the exclusivity of NOM being the L1 of forex chain is being diluted by $ONEX.

Can you guys please explain point wise the difference between utility of NOM and ONEX? Its all getting mixed up…