You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


In a move that could compromise ethereum’s long-held dominance as the world’s top platform for smart-contract development, blockchain interoperability project Cosmos will offer users the choice to code in at least three different programming languages.

The first language to be supported on Cosmos is called Ethermint, a direct replica of ethereum’s smart contract language Solidity. Aimed at making it easier for ethereum developers to port their applications to the Cosmos network, the Ethermint project has been in the works since as early as 2016, said Zaki Manian of Tendermint, the company that built Cosmos.

The second coding language, called Secure EcmaScript (SES), is a version of JavaScript built for secure smart contract deployment by blockchain startup Agoric. Once the native Cosmos Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol is fleshed out, the Agoric blockchain and its SES programming language will be easily accessible to Cosmos users, said Agoric CEO Dean Tribble.

Last but not least, JP Morgan blockchain spin-off Kadena announced Tuesday it too would be building a version of its native smart-contract language, Pact, for the Cosmos ecosystem. Its entrant to the Cosmos coding arms race is called Kadenamint.

“We’re committing to getting an industry-level smart contract language on [Cosmos] to give developers more deployment choices,” Kadena founder Stuart Popejoy told CoinDesk.

According to Popejoy, the comparative strengths of Kadenamint outperform that of Ethermint in every way.

“We see Pact as the standard for smart contract languages because Pact is just better than Solidity,” Popejoy said, adding:

“Every single developer that comes to use it gets things done faster. It’s safer. We have formal verification baked into the language. It’s designed for safety.”

In all fairness, ethereum developers are well aware of the limitations of Solidity and the virtual machine built to execute Solidity’s code. Called eWASM, the next major ethereum upgrade dubbed ethereum 2.0 will replace ethereum’s virtual machine and enable developers to code in multiple different programming languages.

Even so, Popejoy remained skeptical about eWASM and ethereum 2.0 saying the criticisms of ethereum’s virtual machine and Solidity “could have been addressed a long time ago” but weren’t – due to poor leadership.

“I wouldn’t consider them competitors but as it is, I consider them legacy,” said Popejoy about ethereum. “They did a good job in getting smart contracts out there and getting people thinking about it but that’s going to be a footnote.”

New competition

The new competitors differ from Solidity by placing a stronger emphasis on security as opposed to immutability and unstoppability.

“We’re building a platform with a security model that normal developers can understand,” said Agoric’s Tribble. “To us, the biggest problem with ethereum and Solidity is they have the wrong security model. Even security experts can’t get it right.”

Unlike Solidity, both Pact and SES employ an object-capability security model. This means that permissions in a smart contract can be dynamically and rapidly updated to give users access to different parts of application data in a safe way.

Tribble describes the model similar to being able to give your car keys over to a valet without also handing over the rights to car ownership.

Said Tribble:

“That’s typical of identity-based access control where the model of security used is such that the authority that I’m able to give you is either too much or too little. It’s not appropriate for the business interaction we’re trying to have.”

In Tribble’s view, porting object-capability security to smart contracts is the kind of innovation that will signal to the rest of the mainstream developer community that the blockchain industry is ready for mass adoption.

“For mainstream folks, having people that are addressing different parts of the market and visibly overlapping as competitors is actually healthy,” said Tribble. “That means there’s a real market.”

From the perspective of Manian, Cosmos is the ecosystem that can support and host this fast-growing market for smart contracts and decentralized application development. At the same time, he warns that in his view, Cosmos will not and simply cannot replace ethereum entirely because ethereum is much more than a technology.

“Ethereum is so much more than software. Ethereum, the ethereum community, the users of the ethereum blockchain, the faith people have in the core developers. All of that is wrapped up into one thing and that is the ethereum user experience,” Manian said, adding:

“We’re just creating new developer possibilities.”

Cosmos founder Jae Kwon via CoinDesk archives