update(readme): various enhancements

[salmad3]

Iterates on the existing content of the README, focussing on Preamble, Declaration of Genesis, Vision and Missions, and Terms.

• Aims to iterate on writing style for clarity and impact.
• Aims to incorporate key AtomOne propositions through keyword usage (e.g., protect, necessary).
• Initiated content modularization: created 'MILESTONES.md', 'FAQs.md', and 'TO-DO.md' from the README.
• Implements formatting with a heading hierarchy.

  Perhaps ToC is not necessary as there is a built-in feature (right-hand corner) now on GitHub that displays the ToC. May be useful for those using an editor.

• Relocates the 'Terms" section to the top of the document as a dropdown menu.
• 'Hub' as a proper noun?

If this approach seems okay, we can continue on with the other sections.

Looking forward to your feedback and suggestions.

[salmad3]

@moul gentle ping

[moul]

"it redefines the cosmos ecosystem as a minimal IBC/ICS Hub." -> not correct/accurate.

[moul]

"AtomeOne is committed" -> The project isn't committed by him alone. Perhaps the community or authors are, but not the project itself.

[moul]

The focus is not on driving, but on enabling. We prioritize creating a secure minimal hub that unlocks more opportunities for experimentation with fewer risks.

[moul]

This pull request is too large for minimal improvements. Additionally, the changelog is lost because most of the text appears to have been rewritten, possibly by an AI.

I will close it, and you can reopen smaller pull requests if certain parts of this one should be merged.

[salmad3]

This pull request is too large for minimal improvements. Additionally, the changelog is lost because most of the text appears to have been rewritten, possibly by an AI.

I will close it, and you can reopen smaller pull requests if certain parts of this one should be merged.

Context provided here. There are also general grammatical errors addressed beyond {re-}writing the content to add a layer of formality.

[salmad3]

Thanks for the input, @moul.

• The PR can be split, not sure why we went through three reviews to suggest this.
• Suggestions for the Introduction of the README are received.

Above all, the claim on the proposed writing style improvements is misleading, and, like the first point, unsure why we went through three reviews to speculate this.

...eliminate the concept of a changelog diff. Git did not recognize this, but I did, using my human eyes.

Contribution split is useful - I believe the diff is not directly available in that section of the README due to content being moved around (such as the terms.)

Since I must rely on my human eyes and you have altered everything, it is now my responsibility to verify that your ChatGPT generation has not altered the meaning.

Points of contention should be clearly pointed out as opposed to speculating. I believe there are also verification methods available.

I've provided an example below. If necessary, I can be abundantly clear and provide detailed context for each phrase and statement that was proposed in this PR, and detail the overall relation to AtomOne x Genesis.

Keep in mind that I'm providing context to back the efforts of the contributions, having made them in good faith...
The actual contributions, as mentioned in the PR description, are iterative and encourage input; the writing style is merely a suggestion.

Example using "Declaration of Genesis"

General:

• Nature of the document requires a consistent layer of formality
• Mix of past/present tense
• Lack of flow
• Acknowledging that this is an opinionated document, it should still aim to state things positively

So iterating entirely on the existing content felt appropriate.

P1:

There comes a time when there is enough disagreement among community members and stakers about key concerns regarding the business of their chain, such as its vision, mission, tokenomics, architecture, implementation, or philosophy; that it makes the most sense to support an alternative fork running alongside the original so as to be prepared against all contingencies.

• Unclear and complex sentence structure
• Improper use of a semicolon that should be a conjunction
• The first statement has been overused in different communications
• This paragraph is an introduction to a declaration - which should be more direct on the specific claim

P2:

Recent times have seen the Cosmos community grappling with significant challenges stemming from differences about core tokenomics, about the very nature of the $ATOM token (whether it is staking or monetary), about monetization strategy and what types of projects to fund; and there generally appears to be a great cultural chasm that shows no sign of closing about our role and responsibilities as compared to our profit interests. (see [NWV to Prop 848 – $ATOM Must NOT be Money](https://github.com/salmad3/genesis/blob/main/STAKING_VS_MONEY.md)).

• Overuse of terms like "times" (refer to prev. paragraph),
• Unclear list presentation, overusing "about"
• Awkward phrasing in the latter part of the sentence

So, I removed the second paragraph due to its perceived redundancy, merging its content with the first and subsequent paragraphs in this section. The first paragraph changed to the following:

In the constellations of the Cosmos community, profound challenges have emerged, arising from differing opinions on the core aspects of tokenomics and the intrinsic nature of the $ATOM token—its identity as either a staking or monetary instrument. This period is marked by debates over monetization strategies and the prioritization of project funding.

• Tries to incorporate some creativity, specifically "In the constellations of the Cosmos community",
• Aims to provide the "core" direct claim to introduce the declaration, so instead of "such as its vision, mission, tokenomics, architecture..", we replace with "—its identity as either a staking or monetary instrument." The rest can be explored after
• Intentional phrasing such as "intrinsic nature", "monetization strategies", "instrument"

P3:

Proposal #848 ("halvening") succeeded in getting the required threshold of 50% to pass on Gaia, but a significant portion voted NO or NWV which means that that $ATOM stakers are largely split on the most fundamental tokenomics security design element. 73,165,203ATOM YES vs 56,667,011ATOM NO + 11,669,549ATOM NWV overall YES:NO is 1.07:1. Furthermore, this change was proposed on chain without addressing the valid security concerns raised by the community, with huge errors about the cost of inflation by miscalculating true income, and without a complete halvening schedule, thereby working to undermine hub credibility.

• Run-on sentence with multiple clauses lacking clear separation
• General grammatical errors
• Lack of presentable data

P4:

These and prior disagreements have now made clear the need for an alternative hub with a renewed focus and Alignment to serve as the canonical minimal IBC/ICS token hub with respect to Cosmos to champion the ideals of sovereignty, security, and decentralization everywhere; and secondarily to serve as the main base for a political party and more-intelligent voting bloc with respect to Gaia to save Gaia from itself.

• Long and convoluted sentence, combining multiple ideas
• Uses of metaphorical language, like "more intelligent about security" and "anti-fragile against even the most powerful of adversaries," which lacks specificity

Changed to:

The passage of Proposal #848, known as "halvening," although achieving 
the required 50% threshold, revealed a deep-seated division among $ATOM 
stakeholders. The voting resulted in a finely balanced YES:NO ratio 
of `1.07:1`:

- **In Favor (YES):** `73,165,203 ATOM`
- **Against (NO):** `56,667,011 ATOM`
- **NoWithVeto (NWV):** `11,669,549 ATOM`

Notable objections of 'NO' voters were the proposal's failure to address 
security concerns before proposing on-chain, its inaccurate inflation 
cost calculations, and the absence of a detailed halvening schedule, 
all of which undermined the Hub's credibility.

Most importantly:

- The voting outcome displayed a significant division within the community 
on the most fundamental security design elemenet.
- A discernible cultural schism has arisen, spotlighting the contrast 
between roles, responsibilities, and profit interests, as detailed 
in [NWV to Prop 848 – $ATOM Must NOT be Money](./STAKING_VS_MONEY.md). 

• Aims to provide clean flow
• Generally clarifies the relevant proposal details and key points
• Emphasizes the division within the community more effectively by stating it as a key point, rather than implying it
• Phrases like "Notable objections of 'NO' voters were the proposal's failure to address security concerns before proposing on-chain, its inaccurate inflation cost calculations, and the absence of a detailed halvening schedule" use direct language to specify the reasons for opposition, which were only implied before

In light of these unfolding events and persistent disagreements, the 
emergence of an alternative Hub has become necessary. This new entity is 
envisioned to realign and serve as the minimal canonical IBC/ICS token 
Hub within the Cosmos network, upholding the principles of sovereignty, 
security, and decentralization. Further, it aspires to establish a 
political faction and a more discerning voting bloc in relation to Gaia, 
thereby seeking to restore equilibrium and address the internal discord. 

The introduction of a revised distribution model for $ATOM via $ATONE, 
particularly penalizing those who endorsed Proposal #848, is proposed 
to foster a heightened sense of security awareness and fortify resilience 
against even the most formidable adversaries.

• Intentional terms like "necessary", "entity"; phrases like "realign", "restore equilibrium" support the claim of "necessity"
• Provides summary of core principles in three key categories by stating "sovereignty, security, and decentralization"
• In general, a cohesive narrative that leads to the result: "revised distribution model for $ATOM via $ATONE,
  particularly penalizing those who endorsed Proposal #848"

[jaekwon]

re-opening (but not yet making any determination about whether any splitting is needed; more of a reminder for myself).

[giunatale]

Suggested change

	"cosmoshub4".
	"cosmoshub-4".

[giunatale]

This is also done in other places. But the correct chain ID has a dash
https://github.com/cosmos/chain-registry/blob/master/cosmoshub/chain.json