The hub model is obsolete. The original Cosmos vision of a central Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) hub routing value between sovereign zones is being bypassed. Projects like dYdX v4 and Celestia-based rollups demonstrate that appchains now demand direct, sovereign access to shared security and data availability, not mediated liquidity.
web3-philosophy-sovereignty-and-ownership
Blog
The Future of Cosmos: Is the Hub Model Still Sovereign?
An analysis of how Interchain Security creates a new political dynamic in Cosmos, forcing hubs to trade sovereignty for shared security and challenging the original 'sovereign zone' vision.
introduction
THE SOVEREIGNTY PARADOX
Introduction
Cosmos's hub-centric model faces an existential challenge from the rise of sovereign rollups and hyper-specialized appchains.
Sovereignty has been redefined. It is no longer about running your own validator set; it's about modular execution sovereignty. Chains like Neutron and Stride prove that leveraging the Cosmos Hub's security while maintaining full smart contract autonomy is the new competitive baseline, rendering the Hub's pure relay function redundant.
Evidence: The Cosmos Hub's ATOM 2.0 proposal failed, revealing a lack of consensus on the Hub's utility beyond staking. Meanwhile, IBC volume is dominated by Osmosis and other non-hub zones, not the Hub itself, proving value flow bypasses the central spoke.
key-trends
THE FUTURE OF COSMOS
Executive Summary: The Sovereignty Paradox
The Cosmos Hub's sovereignty is being challenged by the very interoperability it pioneered, forcing a redefinition of value in a multi-chain ecosystem.
01
The Problem: The Hub as a Ghost Chain
The Cosmos Hub's core value proposition—security via Interchain Security (ICS)—is being commoditized. Chains like Celestia offer cheaper, modular data availability, while Polymer and Hyperlane enable permissionless IBC connections, bypassing the Hub entirely. Without a unique utility, the Hub risks becoming a $2B+ staked ghost town.
$2B+
Staked at Risk
0
Exclusive Utility
02
The Solution: Interchain Scheduler as a Revenue Monster
The Hub's path to sovereignty is becoming the centralized sequencing layer for cross-chain MEV. The Interchain Scheduler creates a canonical, fee-generating marketplace for cross-domain block space. This turns the Hub into a profit center, not just a cost center, capturing value from every connected chain like Osmosis and dYdX.
100%
Fee Capture
New Revenue
Business Model
03
The Competitor: Celestia's Modular Onslaught
Celestia's success proves developers prioritize sovereignty and cost over shared security. By providing cheap, plug-and-play data availability, it enables rollup-like appchains that don't need the Hub's validator set. This fractures the Cosmos stack and forces the Hub to compete on economics, not ideology.
-99%
DA Cost vs. L1
Sovereignty First
Developer Mindset
04
The Reality: Sovereignty is a Feature, Not a Product
The Hub's original thesis—that chains will pay a premium for shared security—is flawed. Neutron and Stride are the only major ICS consumers. True sovereignty means controlling your own validator set and economic flow. The Hub must offer a product so compelling that sovereignty-seeking chains voluntarily outsource a critical function to it.
2
Major ICS Chains
Feature
Not a Product
05
The Pivot: From Security Provider to Liquidity Conductor
The next battleground is interchain liquidity fragmentation. The Hub must evolve into the trust-minimized router for cross-chain assets, leveraging IBC's native security. This positions it against intent-based bridges like Axelar and LayerZero, but with a stronger security guarantee. Sovereignty is earned by becoming the safest financial rail.
IBC Native
Security Edge
Liquidity Rail
New Role
06
The Verdict: Utility or Irrelevance
The Cosmos Hub's sovereignty is not a given; it's a dynamic equilibrium based on provided utility. Its future hinges on successfully commercializing the Interchain Scheduler and Allocator. If it fails to capture meaningful cross-chain economic activity, its ~14% ATOM staking yield will be its only attraction, a slow path to irrelevance in a modular world.
14%
Staking Yield
Dynamic
Sovereignty
thesis-statement
THE REALITY
The Core Argument: Sovereignty is a Spectrum, Not a Binary
The Hub model's sovereignty is being unbundled by new infrastructure, forcing a redefinition of the term.
Sovereignty is not absolute. A Cosmos chain's sovereignty is defined by its control over execution, settlement, and data availability. The Hub historically bundled these, but new modular tech like Celestia for data availability and EigenLayer for shared security fragments this control.
The Hub is now a competitor. Chains like Neutron and Stride use the Hub's security but compete with its core functions. This creates a sovereignty-as-a-service market where chains choose providers for each layer, from Celestia to Polygon Avail to EigenLayer.
Evidence: The Hub's TVL share is <10% of the Cosmos ecosystem. Chains like Injective and dYdX chose Celestia over the Hub's data layer, proving sovereignty is a composable choice, not a bundled mandate.
INTERCHAIN SECURITY
The ICS Adoption Matrix: Who's Trading Sovereignty?
A comparison of sovereign chain models in Cosmos, analyzing the trade-offs between full sovereignty, shared security via ICS, and hybrid approaches.
| Sovereignty Dimension | Fully Sovereign Chain (e.g., Osmosis) | ICS Consumer Chain (e.g., Neutron) | Provider Chain (Cosmos Hub) |
|---|---|---|---|
Validator Set Control | |||
Slashing Enforcement | Self-governed | Delegated to Provider | Enforces on Consumers |
Max Revenue Share to Provider | 0% | 25% (typical) | Collects from Consumers |
Upgrade Governance Autonomy | |||
Base Security (Stake Value) | Chain's own $ATOM stake | Provider's $ATOM stake | Provider's $ATOM stake |
Time to Launch (from zero) | Months (bootstrapping) | Weeks (lease security) | N/A |
Primary Use Case | App-specific L1 with full control | Rapid deployment, max security | Infrastructure & revenue accrual |
deep-dive
THE GOVERNANCE
The Political Dynamics of a Security Cartel
The Cosmos Hub's sovereignty is being eroded by the economic and political power of its largest validator cartels.
Validators control sovereignty. The Hub's governance is a plutocracy where the top 10 validators hold ~40% of voting power. This concentration creates a security cartel whose economic incentives prioritize ATOM staking yields over the Hub's architectural neutrality.
Interchain Security undermines neutrality. Services like Replicated Security and Mesh Security transform the Hub from a sovereign chain into a shared security vendor. This creates a political conflict: validators vote for proposals that maximize their fee revenue from consumer chains, not the ecosystem's health.
The cartel resets incentives. The failed ATOM 2.0 proposal revealed this dynamic. Large validators rejected reduced inflation, which would have lowered their staking rewards, despite the plan's long-term utility. Sovereignty is now a function of validator profit maximization.
Evidence: Post-ATOM 2.0, governance shifted to fee-centric models like the Interchain Scheduler. This directs value to the validator set, cementing the Hub's role as a profit center for its security providers, not a neutral coordinating layer.
counter-argument
THE ARCHITECTURAL REALITY
Steelman: This is Just Optional Modularity
The Cosmos Hub's sovereignty is not under threat but is being redefined as one optional service provider within a modular stack.
The hub is a service provider. Sovereignty in Cosmos is a chain-level property, not a hub-level mandate. The Interchain Security (ICS) model, where consumer chains lease security from the Hub, is an optional product. Chains like Celestia and EigenLayer now provide credible, specialized alternatives for data availability and shared security, making the Hub's offerings a competitive choice, not a requirement.
Sovereignty means optionality. The core value proposition is Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC), a permissionless standard, not the Hub itself. A chain's sovereignty is its ability to choose providers for execution, consensus, and data availability. This modular competition, seen with dYdX choosing Cosmos SDK but not the Hub, proves the model works by decoupling political from technical sovereignty.
Evidence: The Hub's market share in secured value via ICS is a single-digit percentage of the total Cosmos ecosystem TVL. Major appchains like Osmosis and Injective operate with their own validators, demonstrating that the dominant path is full, not leased, sovereignty. The Hub succeeds by providing a superior product, not by being a gatekeeper.
risk-analysis
THE HUB MODEL'S EXISTENTIAL THREATS
The Bear Case: What Could Go Wrong?
The Cosmos Hub's sovereignty is under pressure from technical commoditization and shifting economic incentives.
01
The Commoditization of Interchain Security
The Hub's flagship service, Interchain Security (ICS), faces competition from simpler, cheaper alternatives. Celestia's data availability and EigenLayer's restaking offer modular security without Hub governance overhead, making ICS a premium product in a commodity market.
- Key Risk 1: $0.5B+ in ATOM securing consumer chains is at risk of migration.
- Key Risk 2: Polymer, Dymension, Saga are building their own security networks, bypassing the Hub.
-90%
Cost Premium
5+
Competitors
02
The Liquidity Sinkhole Problem
ATOM's value accrual is weak. The Hub's native token is not required for core IBC transactions, and its primary utility is staking for governance and security. This creates a sovereignty subsidy where the Hub provides a public good (IBC) without capturing its economic value.
- Key Risk 1: $2.6B ATOM market cap is not backed by protocol revenue.
- Key Risk 2: High-inflation monetary policy (currently ~10%) dilutes holders to pay for security.
~10%
Inflation Tax
$0
IBC Fees
03
The Sovereign App-Chain Exodus
The core value prop of Cosmos—sovereignty—is also its greatest threat. Successful chains like dYdX, Injective, Sei have no incentive to route value back to the Hub. They build their own ecosystems, fragmenting liquidity and developer mindshare away from the central coordinator.
- Key Risk 1: $10B+ in TVL exists on sovereign chains, not the Hub.
- Key Risk 2: Osmosis is the de facto liquidity hub, not Cosmos Hub.
$10B+
External TVL
1
Hub Utility
04
The Interoperability Arms Race
IBC is no longer the only game in town. LayerZero, Axelar, Wormhole, and Chainlink CCIP offer generalized messaging that works across non-Cosmos ecosystems (EVM, Solana). These are winning developer mindshare by abstracting complexity, making IBC's "sovereign but connected" model feel archaic.
- Key Risk 1: $20B+ in value secured by competing bridges.
- Key Risk 2: Developers choose convenience over ideological purity.
$20B+
Bridge TVL
4+
Major Rivals
future-outlook
THE SOVEREIGNTY SHIFT
Future Outlook: The Rise of the Meta-Hub
The Cosmos Hub's role is evolving from a central router to a specialized security provider for the entire Interchain.
The Hub is a security provider. The original vision of the Cosmos Hub as the central liquidity and governance nexus for the Interchain is obsolete. Its primary value proposition is now Interchain Security (ICS), which allows consumer chains like Neutron and Stride to lease its validator set's economic security.
Sovereignty is a spectrum. Projects choose between full sovereignty (running their own validators), shared security (ICS), or app-chain-as-a-service platforms like Celestia's Rollkit or Polygon CDK. The trade-off is between customizability and shared security overhead.
The Meta-Hub aggregates security. The future Cosmos Hub functions as a meta-security layer, competing with other pooled security providers like EigenLayer on Ethereum and Babylon on Bitcoin. Its success depends on the adoption of ICS and the economic activity of its consumer chains.
Evidence: The Hub's ATOM token derives over 30% of its staking yield from ICS fees paid by consumer chains, a metric that will define its valuation as a security-as-a-service business.
takeaways
THE HUB VS. THE ECOSYSTEM
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
The Cosmos Hub's sovereignty is being challenged by new tech and economic models. Here's what matters for your stack.
01
The Hub is a Security Sink, Not a Liquidity Sink
ATOM's value accrual is broken. The Hub's primary product—shared security via Interchain Security (ICS)—faces stiff competition from cheaper, modular alternatives like Babylon (Bitcoin staking) and EigenLayer (restaking).
- Key Benefit 1: Sovereign chains can now rent security from Bitcoin or Ethereum, bypassing ATOM.
- Key Benefit 2: This commoditizes security, forcing the Hub to compete on price and tooling, not just ideology.
$1B+
EigenLayer TVL
~90%
Cheaper Sec
02
IBC is the Real Sovereign Standard
Sovereignty was never about running your own validator set; it's about unfettered interoperability. The Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol is the killer app, enabling seamless asset and data transfer between Osmosis, Celestia, dYdX, and Neutron.
- Key Benefit 1: IBC's transport layer is battle-tested, moving $30B+ monthly.
- Key Benefit 2: It allows chains to be sovereign and connected, making the Hub's role as a central router optional.
$30B+
Monthly Volume
~3s
Finality
03
Modularity Eats the Monolithic Hub
The future is specialized layers. Why run a full Cosmos SDK chain when you can deploy a rollup on Celestia for data, use dYmension for settlement, and plug into Hyperlane for cross-chain messaging?
- Key Benefit 1: Development and deployment costs drop by ~60% using modular components.
- Key Benefit 2: Escape the Hub's governance overhead while maintaining IBC compatibility via Particle Network's ZK-IBC or Socket.
-60%
Dev Cost
10k+ TPS
Scalability
04
Interchain Allocator: The Hub's Last Gambit
The Hub's response is economic capture via the Interchain Allocator. It uses ATOM treasury to bribe chains with liquidity and incentives to use ICS and route through the Hub.
- Key Benefit 1: Creates a powerful flywheel for early-stage chain bootstrapping.
- Key Benefit 2: Turns the Hub into a VC-like entity, competing with Polygon, Arbitrum, and Optimism superchains for developer mindshare.
$100M+
Deployment Pool
Strategic
Liquidity
05
Consumer Chains are a Tax on Sovereignty
ICS consumer chains trade sovereignty for convenience. You outsource security to the Hub's validator set but pay for it with high inflation and ATOM governance risk.
- Key Benefit 1: Fast-track launch with established $3B+ security.
- Key Benefit 2: But you inherit the Hub's political and technical debt, creating vendor lock-in versus a pure CosmWasm sovereign chain.
$3B+
Secured Value
High
Govt. Overhead
06
The Endgame: Hub as Legacy Infrastructure
The Hub will persist as a high-security zone for flagship apps (e.g., Neutron smart contracts) and large-value settlement. But innovation will happen at the edges with rollups, app-chains, and aggregated security from EigenLayer and Babylon.
- Key Benefit 1: The 'Internet of Blockchains' vision succeeds, but the Hub is just one ISP among many.
- Key Benefit 2: Architects must design for a multi-hub, modular future where IBC and ZK-proofs are the real sovereign primitives.
Multi-Hub
Future State
ZK-IBC
Key Primitive
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall