There is nothing bad about cosmos. Its just different. The previous poster is talking about Trust with regards to transactions. Not to the devs. Maybe you misunderstood?
The Blocknet is the only project in our awareness that decentralises the four core functions of an exchange - capital deposits, order broadcast, order matching, and coin exchange.
all coins stay in wallets
orders are broadcast over an inter-chain DHT network overlay
order books are compiled by local applications, not a central or distributed entity
coin exchange is atomic and trustless, utilising OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY and not requiring the control of any third party.
As for interoperability in general and the emerging token ecosystem, the Blocknet is deliberately designed to function as infrastructure. No central chain is required, enabling services to be built on any chain and monetised and delivered over xbridgep2p, our "blockchain router," to nodes on any other chain and to dapps harnessing blockchain services.
As for Cosmos, (a) its consensus algorithm is DPOS and (b) it relies on anchors/validators and so is vulnerable to collusion attacks.
These two points amount to Cosmos being a distributed system, but not one in which control is decentralised (that's what "decentralised" means btw - it's about control).
Thirdly - and correct me if I'm mistaken - Cosmos' approach is architecturally ill-fated to run afoul of the emerging "token ecosystem" by requiring inter-chain services to run on its chain only.
This is another way of saying that it is "inter-chain centralised," may be fine for sidechains, but is not suitable for an inter-chain era where it becomes the norm for dapps to become inter-chain orchestrations of on-chain microservices.
https://www.reddit.com/r/theblocknet/comments/676buj/ask_anything_about_blocknet_qa/
