Firstly, I ask that people speak with @fragwuerdig in a respectful and professional manner. Its disappointing to hear he feels he has had to defend himself like “a criminal”. He has the best interest of the chain’s security at heart, even if the original proposal is read as is, which it shouldnt be - based on conversations with @fragwuerdig the proposal is poorly worded. The proposal isnt precautionary nor is it about implementing cosmos best practices, it is about a known potential exploit vector that is directly mitigated by restrictions on cosmwasm deployment addresses. So it is more important than as written.
Second, for CL8Y ecosystem, the proposal as is, prevents us from implementing emergency upgrades for our deployed contracts. Every new AI model released discovers new vulnerabilities, and we have to run them, build, and deploy fixes immediately - 7 days is far too long. Incident response has to happen in minutes, not days.
As long as this is paired with whitelisting the CL8Y Ecosystem Multisig:
terra1zlmv2xydxcusurtr6rl78wsvytdc6mfex6hep7
The CL8Y ecoystem will be able to conduct normal operations in a secure fashion with the new proposal. However, that must be immediately with minimal delay after the implementation of this cosmwasm restriction proposal - each day that goes by without whitelisting is a security risk.
That said, my personal opinion is that permisionless deployment should return quickly as it helps new ecosystem members deploy trading bots and other tools. This ultimately drives LUNC and USTC onchain activity and burns. However, I understand that there are tradeoffs extending beyond the CL8Y ecosystem, so the proposal & voters should take the balance of increased LUNC and USTC burns vs security into consideration.