Agoric Cosmos Hub Proposal

This proposal is to pilot an allocation of 4% of Cosmos Community Pool’s idle ATOM for liquid staking on Stride (stATOM) and Persistence (stkATOM) and use these tokens throughout the Cosmos Ecosystem to deepen liquidity while generating value for the Hub. The staked assets will deposit stATOM and stkATOM into Inter Protocol Vaults to mint IST and provide LP to numerous liquidity pools throughout the Cosmos ecosystem. This increases the Community Pool’s capital efficiency of the idle ATOM, earning a projected yield of 18-19% annually on deposited ATOM. This proposal increases ecosystem use, increases network effects, deepens liquidity in Cosmos, strengthens relationships, and earns a high net yield for the Cosmos Hub. After an initial 3-month period, an additional 6% will be allocated to achieve a 10% total allocation of Community pool to earn these ecosystem and staking rewards, deepening Cosmos liquidity throughout various appchains. TL;DR • 4% of Cosmos Community Pool ATOM to be staked via stATOM and stkATOM in the first quarter as a pilot program, increasing by 6% to achieve a total 10% of Cosmos Hub Community Pool to this opportunity. Deposit 4% stATOM and stkATOM to an…

Excerpt (1199 of 15254 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I think that this is a great step towards stimulating stable liquidity in Cosmos, and is definitively more impactful and profitable for the Hub than how funds are currently deployed.

Easy yes in my opinion.

Said this last time there was a POL request. Liquidity should come at a cost. This might been LP upside should be shared but we must move on from the early POL agreements and eventually update them.

Can we lay out more concrete numbers and more context? One thing in favor of this is that the interest rate (stability fee) on the minted IST debt was lowered, for all collateral types (at the time, there were only two), from 2.5% down to 0.75% in January. There’s currently over 4 million ATOM in the Community Pool. 4% of that is 160,000 ATOM, which at a price of $10 would be $1.6 million worth of collateral. At the proposed 300% collateralization ratio, that allows minting a bit over 500,000 IST. The proposed bump upping that amount to 400,000 ATOM would allow minting a bit over 1,300,000 IST. Is that correct? Because on top of what’s already been minted by others against stATOM, that would exceed the mint limit for stATOM collateral (the app says 1.29MM out of 2MM is available for minting against stATOM). inter.trade Inter Protocol The overcollateralized and programmable stable token for Cosmos IBC. You mention stkATOM too but right now there are 4 types of Vaults to mint IST with: ATOM, stATOM, stOSMO, or stTIA. stkATOM doesn’t look like it’s live yet, it’s being onboarded with a proposed limit of 600,000 IST . That would add…

Excerpt (1195 of 1971 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Why are we choosing IST over say SILK? Assuming the USK issue is it being closed source & CDT bc its miniscule in size.

SILK has 4,295,841 supply, $4,888,433 MC.
IST has 1.55M supply

This would be increasing IST’s supply by 33%.

IPFred:

Positions within Inter Vaults will be adjusted if a 50% price decrease is observed. In case of debt pay-off, debt will be paid off equally on all positions. This will occur on a quarterly basis by the multisig stewards. Rewards from various LP positions will be harvested quarterly.

Wait, this makes no sense. If a 50% price decrease is observed, the Vaults will have already been liquidated. If you start at a collateralization ratio of 300%, a 50% drawdown leaves the Vault at 150%. An stATOM Vault has a Liquidation Ratio of 160%. (And for ATOM the LR is exactly 150%.)

I’m curious why there was no attempts to coordinate this with the Informal team. ATOM wars and Timewave are designed precisely to provide a proper framework for this

Hello Thyborg. We have of course had conversations with a number of stakeholders, for example we did speak with Bryan (Informal) at ethDenver. While we are certainly happy to see frameworks such as ATOM Wars beginning to emerge, we decided to proceed ahead with a smaller proposal to get the ball rolling. We are happy to work with you and others on both getting this out and having future revisions dovetail with broader community efforts.

A couple of points here to explain our thinking a bit: First, IST is the not only a bit older, but also the more open and decentralized protocol. Second, DCF and Agoric are both acting as sponsors on this, so it naturally aligns with IST. And, finally, we at DCF are quite bullish on the security model of the Agoric VM and we believe that makes IST the better option for the Hub, given the source and nature of the funds.

Great, let’s do that then, here’s my Calendly

Cool. Just grabbed us a time. Thx!

“Because on top of what’s already been minted by others against stATOM, that would exceed the mint limit for stATOM collateral (the app says 1.29MM out of 2MM is available for minting against stATOM).” This is why there is a phased approach, as mint limits can be increased by the Economic Committee

The greatest benefit of this proposal is that it allows Cosmos Hub an opportunity to deepen liquidity throughout various Cosmos ecosystems, while at the same time increasing overall capital efficiency of Cosmos assets

@IPFred Do you think you can have someone enable github login for the Agoric Discourse forum? Proposal doesn’t mention that the potential profits and risks of this proposal depend on parameters that Inter Protocol can change at any time. The stability fee is currently 0.75%, but the Economic Committee can (and should) readjust it in response to evolving market conditions and demand for IST. If the stability fee ever rises to a level where the debt grows faster than the liquidity earns yield, the debt should be wound down by the multisig. The Economic Committee also has the ability to raise the Liquidation Ratio, so it would help if the proposal included discussion of what each collateral’s LR currently is, the possibility of the LR being changed, and a provision that either commits to not raising the LR for 1 year, or commits to providing substantial advance notice before it does get raised. IPFred: Stableswap yield is expected to remain around 10%, increasing total capital efficiency on the original ATOM by 18-19% Can you explain where you’re getting these numbers from and why anyone would expect them not to change over the next year? (Why the passive…

Excerpt (1195 of 4183 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

IPFred:

The split of minted IST to be used in Cosmos DeFi is proposed to be as follows:

1. 30% to Osmosis IST/USDC Concentrated Liquidity pool
2. 25% to Astroport IST/USDC.nbl pool
3. 15% to Astrovault IST/USDC.nbl pool
4. 15% to Shade IST/SILK pool
5. 15% to a Quasar IST/USDC vault

1. According to this quote, you are going to LP IST with USDC. Where will you get these USDC to LP them with IST?

2. I don’t think it’s possible to compare the risk/potential profit. Most of the profits come from staking, not from the stablecoin’s yield. Why don’t you specify the risks, for example, the possible liquidation of the vault if the collateralization rate drops below the liquidation rate?

3. Why should the Cosmos Hub support Inter specifically? Agoric is not a consumer chain and does not provide benefits to the Cosmos Hub itself.

Potential profit is 18-19% based on a collateralization ratio on the overall position of 350 - 440%, which is a very conservative position.

The yields at different collateralization ratios (that the Hub can choose) are as follows:

• 350% : 18.5% APY
• 400% : 18.19% APY
• 440% : 18% APY

These calculations take into account the collateralization ratio, liquidation ratio (160%) and Inter Protocol vault fee.

The net yield is shown in the APYs above.

1. We have an incentive budget to incentivize the Osmosis IST/USDC pool which would increase depth to the point that it could sustain this swap. This has been the favored option. Alternatively, if the Quasar pool is set up by the time of implementation here, that is another option.

2. The largest risk is liquidation. Thus, in these estimates the collateralization ratio has been set to a conservative 350-440% range. The Hub would decide exact params of the position with a following prop. If ATOM price decreases by 25% or more, the multisig signers and community will adjust or close the position based on risk tolerance.

3. Agoric is greatly aligned with Cosmos in that it locks up ATOM and increases the utility and capital efficiency of the asset. All of this helps the greater Cosmos ecosystem, increases ATOM demand, and favorably impacts the ATOM token economy.

Nice idea!
We will support this proposal with the POSTHUMAN validator!

Looks good, but the imbalance between Stride and pStake is somewhat concerning.

This would amplify the dominance of stride. No one wants a new Lido situation.

Sounds like a great proposal to put some idle ATOM to work! Really interested in the potential to earn more on our community pool. One thing I noticed is the split between allocating IST to Stride (stATOM) and Persistence (stkATOM). While I appreciate the diversification, a 50/50 split might be more fair. Just thinking out loud, maybe we could even base it on market cap or TVL of each project? Another option could be to let the community vote on the final percentages but I personally favor a fairer spread on both providers.

Also, it would be awesome to see a plan for managing risk, like having stop-loss limits in place. Transparency on fees would be great too, so we know exactly what we’re getting into.

Overall, this seems like a really positive step for Cosmos Hub. Looking forward to seeing how it plays out!

I also think a split 50/50 stAtom, stkAtom will be great.

I’m all for the idea of using the ATOM Community Pool to mint IST. It’s a smart move for us in the Cosmos ecosystem, especially considering the rollercoaster history with stablecoins. It’s not just about moving forward; it’s about strengthening the entire stablecoin ecosystem in a thoughtful way.

However, I believe we should revisit the distribution between stATOM and stkATOM. Given stkATOM’s impressive liquidity, its integration across numerous DeFi projects, and its solid team behind it, there’s a clear case for a more balanced approach. Actually, by adjusting the split, we have the opportunity to maximize our resources & benefits more broadly across the ecosystem.

Excited to see this develop and to contribute where required.
SuperEra

There is a strong argument for putting community pool funds to work.

The proposal is asking for 10% of the Cosmos Hub community pool ATOM?

Currently 11.3M ATOM in community pool.

As was pointed out by @Trix

SILK has 4,295,841 supply, $4,888,433 MC.
IST has 1.55M supply

Does this mean that Shade should put a prop up for 3X the amount of ATOM as Agoric to mint SILK?

If we agree that’s absurd, does the 90:10 split between Stride and pStake make sense?

If bigger players should get a bigger share, then doesn’t it follow that we also support a ~3M ATOM prop to increase SILK liquidity?

Revisiting the LST staking ratio would make sense imo.

Disclaimer: I’m a core contributor to the pSTAKE Finance protocol through Persistence Labs. These are my personal views. Overall, I greatly support this proposal. The rationale and benefits to the Cosmos Hub and the broader Cosmos Ecosystem are pretty evident. • Direct opportunity for the Hub to generate revenue via LST staking rewards and DeFi yields • Increased adoption and distribution of ATOM liquid staking • ATOM (through LSTs) becomes the biggest collateral backing IST • ATOM brings together multiple ecosystems in the Cosmos and ties their successes together • Growing ATOM-aligned liquid staking providers’ pie • Boosts decentralized stablecoins (much-needed DeFi layer in Cosmos since the Terra collapse and in comparison to something like DAI on Ethereum) My main concern is similar to the one highlighted by fellow community members here: the proposed split between stATOM and stkATOM. On initial thoughts, the proposed 90-10 split seems concerning, especially with limited rationale provided for the same in the first place. I recognize that Stride currently has more adoption and liquidity for ATOM liquid staking. Hence, a 50-50 split is not warranted to…

Excerpt (1191 of 3106 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I pretty much support Agoric Team proposal. I believe this is a great opportunity for Atom to play significant role on LSD market.
My concerns are around the split between stAtom and stkAtom. I believe we should avoid overcentralization around single lsd provider. Stride in that case.
I’m more for 50:50 split between Stride and Pstake. Stride has higher TVL, Pstake has better adoption for stkAtom on defi and is offering much better yield.
Additionally Pstake automated delegation process between all validators supports better decentralization long term and less risk for the users.

While I agree the initiative is overall positive, the proposal should be more concise about:

1. Exactly how the community funds are distributed
2. What amount is distributed on which DeFi Protocols

In addition to that, the split between stATOM and stkATOM should be either 50:50 or close. Each LST issuer (Stride / pSTAKE) has its advantages. Choosing Stride as the MAIN winner of the proposal here is bad for decentralization.

I believe @vandkar from pSTAKE has created a splendid reply to this discussion.

In addition to this, further discussion is crucial to determine where in DeFi should the stkATOM / stATOM be used. For instance, I propose SILK instead of IST.

It is funny to see that we see similar proposals popping up on multiple chains in the ecosystem. For me it started on dYdX ( [DRC] dYdX Community Staking Proposal - #56 by LeonoorsCryptoman - dYdX Chain - dYdX Community Forum - Governance, Proposals, and Chain Discussions ) and finding it here now as well. As I have propagated on more places; I am all for decentralisation of LST-providers. The winner-takes-all stuff we see on ETH is in the end bad for the ecosystem and bad for innovation. Protocols fighting for their share and winning over new users by means of the innovations they deliver is what makes us stronger in the end. The market is also big enough for that. That being said; taking the numbers into account of stkATOM vs stATOM and the corresponding liquidity of both assets the 90:10 ratio should change. Not perse 50:50 to also do right on the position Stride has managed to achieve in the time they are live. I would also expect QuickSilver to join the discussions soon to have the biggest set of providers in the picture. One question what pops my mind; what good will it do for IST besides having more liquidity in the IST/stable pools on various protocols? Is there an…

Excerpt (1198 of 1218 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

LeonoorsCryptoman: That being said; taking the numbers into account of stkATOM vs stATOM and the corresponding liquidity of both assets the 90:10 ratio should change. Not perse 50:50 to also do right on the position Stride has managed to achieve in the time they are live I also agree with this, while it is a great initiative to focus on stATOM and stkATOM, what is the reasoning behind the 90:10 split? I also think Stride should have the largest portion of the ATOM, but why specifically 90:10 and not 80:20 or 70:30? About IST itself, before there was native USDC or USDT, IST was an IBC stablecoin coin but with native USDC or USDT the value add of IST is that it is overcollateralized rather that fiat-backed stablecoin? DAI is also overcollateralized but has the bridge risk, however when Ethereum and hence DAI (4.7B marketcap) connects also to IBC how will IST (1.3M marketcap) compete? What are the collateralization ratios of IST for different accepted vault assets like ATOM or stATOM? Also, ‘The Reserve is a fund of diversified cryptocurrencies held by the Inter Protocol as Protocol Controlled Value (PCV). This provides an emergency fund that can cover a shortfall in a…

Excerpt (1199 of 1489 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Disclosure: I’m a Stride contributor I’m thrilled to finally see a proposal aimed at fostering significant growth in decentralized stablecoin liquidity in the Cosmos ecosystem, something which I’ve seen as lacking in Cosmos defi more broadly. IST’s minting costs are quite low, but adoption (imo) has been held back by a liquidity shortfall. Fostering deeper liquidity for IST across the ecosystem will make IST a far more attractive option for DeFi integrations, increasing mint frequency using ATOM LSTs. I do want to quickly address the points raised by @vandkar and the rest of the pstake community about the split between stATOM and stkATOM as a collateral type for minting IST. I appreciate all of the data points raised, and would like to raise a few of my own, mostly related to safety of Stride vs pStake. While I understand the calls for fairness in allocations, when considering a proposal for deploying community funds in defi, ensuring that tokens staked with the respective protocols can be done so safely is far more important. To that end, I want to raise two main issues. 1. stkATOM is far more susceptible to price impact than stATOM As noted by the pStake folks, Stride…

Excerpt (1199 of 4197 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Minting IST seems a good move for Cosmos, but the split doesn’t look nice considering stkATOM’s numbers (mk share, LST liquidity…), and characteristics. Maybe something around a 70-30 would be better

A lot of people are curious about the proposed split of ATOM collateral between Stride and pStake. The current proposal calls for 90% to be liquid staked with Stride and 10% with pStake. The simple reason is that Stride is an ICS chain, and pays fees to Cosmos Hub. The more the Hub supports Stride, the more the Hub benefits. Stride is by far the most successful ICS chain the Hub has. Currently, Stride pays to ATOM stakers 97,807 STRD annualized plus $300K in various tokens. That’s a total of ~$700K per year, making Stride by far the biggest source of revenue for Cosmos Hub. Stride is a huge part of Cosmos Hub, so I think it makes sense for the Hub to favor Stride. Another thing to keep in mind is that Cosmos Hub already massively supports pStake. In fact, in relative terms the Hub already supports pStake even more than Stride! Cosmos Hub currently provides pStake with ~50% of its ATOM TVL. To make a comparison, Cosmos Hub only provides ~15% of Stride’s ATOM POL. So given the huge vested interest Cosmos Hub has in Stride’s success, and considering that Cosmos Hub already provides 50% of pStake’s ATOM TVL - the think the proposed 90:10 split makes sense. As many people…

Excerpt (1195 of 1235 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Jason Potts from EC here. Regarding the mint limits on collateral types and available room for growth, the ECs view on this is very much to focus on ensuring overall mint limits are set in such a way that they will not impede natural growth, and so we monitor this closely and revise, usually upwards, when we observe growth in demand and feel comfortable with the sources or causes of it, based on our own analysis. Our over-riding concern is safety of the protocol, which is why we prefer to phase these increases in, rather than just having an unlimited minting opportunities, of which our firm view is that would expose IST to certain sorts of attacks. But in seeking to provide this safety we are ever vigilant that we are not inadvertently stifling natural growth in demand for particular collateral assets and minting uses of IST. But, to be clear, our role is not to choose which assets can be minted for IST per se, as that is for the community to propose. Rather, our role is to make risk decision about those assets, and to ensure, through careful selection of CR and minting limits, that the assets the community seeks to use as collateral can be used safely (and also, there-in, to…

Excerpt (1194 of 1545 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Re: “economic committee also has the ability to raise the liquidation ration…” Speaking on behalf, EC decisions about LR are based on making decisions about analysis of risk, and then changes in that risk in order to maintain a high level of safety, and therefore confidence and trust in IST. As we have been doing in the past, and changes to parameters will be fully telegraphed and explained in advance, unless responding to emergency safety situations. It is our intention everywhere and always to utterly minimise if not entirely eliminate where possible surprise or unexpected changes. A boring protocol is a good protocol. Money and finance is never the place for excitement, and the ECs role as much as possible is to make that so, or at least never to contribute to that. The problem with making a strong commitment not to change any LR params or others is that it binds our hands in ways that detract from our overall goal of delivering safety, and creates a point of possible attack. Our commitment, as a discretionary expert committee, is to evaluate all relevant available information, and to act as good fiduciaries for the benefit of the community. THat means that, as best we can, we…

Excerpt (1198 of 1665 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

An X-space focused on this proposal hosted by DCF via Inter Protocol is being organized for next week. Tentatively scheduled for Thursday, April 4 at 16:00 UTC. We will hear from various individuals who were either part of framing the proposal or are operating in ecosystems mentioned within it.

Put a hold on your calendar - we expect a great conversation, including interaction with folks who attend in the audience.

I will post more here once it’s all locked down.

Cryptocito has done a great job breaking down the proposal. Have a watch of his recent video and keep the discussion rolling.

check out his twitter for a link to the video.

I understand the rationale behind deviating from the 90:10 ratio, but generally, I support prioritizing projects aligned with ICS. This extends beyond just liquid staking providers to encompass various projects within AES with competitors. AES (atom economic security, feels like a more appropriate term than AEZ) should prioritize incentives towards ICS chains for onboarding, even if it means favoring its ICS chains. However, I disagree with the proposal as a whole for mainly two reasons:

1. IST adoption has been lackluster and unproven compared to SILK or USK. This proposal incentivizes the larger stablecoin protocols to request more funding relative to their proportions.

2. This is a liquidity handout for free, no fees coming back to CP. This doesn’t make sense for me unless this was a protocol that was in high demand that would in return increase demand for ATOM. This isn’t proven or tested. I don’t think relative impact it will have justifies free liquidity distribution.

Increased Returns, Ecosystem Benefits, Governance Token Diversification, 3x Vote Yes

dynstatic:

Do you think you can have someone enable github login for the Agoric Discourse forum?

This has now been added to the Agoric forum. Thanks!

I argue that the proposal DOES positively impact ATOM by exemplifying a use case available through Inter Protocol that allows both

1. The lockup of ATOM
2. Increased utility for ATOM.

More ATOM locked is undeniably good for the stability of the ecosystem. Utility of holding the asset is increased by exemplifying the use case of minting other assets, a stabletoken in this case, which can be used composable throughout the rest of the ecosystem.

On behalf of the PRO Delegators’ validator team, we want to draw everyone’s attention to the current discussions within the hub regarding the future implementation of a Protocol Own Liquidity (PoL) system, commonly referred to as “ATOM Wars”. If you’re not already familiar with it, we strongly encourage you to read the following post for a thorough overview: The ATOM Wars: a new governance platform for liquidity injections ATOM Economic Zone Note: The purpose of this post is to make concrete suggestions for the design of a system that would complement the Cosmos Hub’s role as a shared security provider and ATOM’s role as the Interchain Capital. It is written by Thyborg & Juan Beccuti (Informal) with numerous ideas & feedbacks from Zaki Manian (Iqlusion), EffortCapital (Blockworks), Sam Hart (Timewave), Jehan Tremback (Informal), Ethan Buchman (Informal), Elijah (Neutron) and Riley (Stride). The Cosmos ecosystem stands out for its u… This proposition aims to allocate ATOMs from the community pool through liquid staking to mint some IST stablecoin, in order to improve DEX liquidity for the latter. Our stance on this matter is as follows: regarding community…

Excerpt (1198 of 2672 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmos Hub governance proposal 899 has been submitted.
View the full details of the proposal via IPFS: ipfs://Qmc35ypBFE96xFuSgoBMLSpVYJtEy5WUXmoLyBz2vfngKn

Really good points. And I’m still not clear on where this ‘stableswap yield’ number came from: IPFred: Stableswap yield is expected to remain around 10%, It sounds like there’s an expectation that the swap fees from liquidity provision will outpace the 0.75% APR of the IST debt, making it easily repayable, but that seems…uncertain? The concrete steps seem like (using an arbitrary amount of IST solely for example): • Deposit collateral, mint 100,000 IST, get 99,500 IST, as 500 IST goes to the 0.5% mint fee. • Swap 49,750 IST for 49,750 USDC. (Do any OTC desks take IST, or is this step reliant on the currently existing liquidity on Osmosis for this pair, risking slippage and possibly requiring buying it very slowly and incrementally?) • Deposit LP, earn swap fees for a year, while regularly monitoring: the growth of the debt, falls in the price of ATOM, and any adjustments to parameters by Inter Protocol, withdrawing from the LP to pay down debt as necessary to avoid liquidation. • Exit the position by depositing hopefully-50k-ish USDC into the Inter Protocol’s Parity Stabiity Module (PSM) for no-slippage minting of 50k-ish IST. • Attempt to zero out the…

Excerpt (1198 of 2831 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

if $ATOM enters into this ouroboros pilot program where it reduces its own appeal and the defi yields it positions itself to profit from. wont this proposal only benefit those who are spending the CP at the expense of defi users?

and with regular incentive adjustments, why would osmosis not adjust its stable IST pools to a level, rendering this proposal moot, rather than pay atom an APR to disincentivize users to LP?

https://twitter.com/inter_protocol/status/1775490338435530771 Liquidity Provision Breakdown A strategic split of the minted IST aims to maximize impact: 30% Osmosis 25% Astroport 15% Astrovault, @Shade_Protocol , @QuasarFi each Enhancing liquidity while capturing yield from swap fees and DEX incentives. This tweet today looks like it’s based on the old proposal draft, and not the current proposal? Proposal 899 says: ``` The split of minted IST to be used in Cosmos DeFi is proposed to be as follows: 1. 30% to Osmosis IST/USDC Concentrated Liquidity pool 2. 25% to Astroport IST/USDC.nbl pool 3. 25% to a Quasar IST/USDC vault 4. 20% to Shade IST/SILK pool ``` Most of these are stablecoins with the same peg, but for that last one, is there any estimate of how much impermanent loss in the IST/SILK pairing might happen over the course of a year? The proposal says positions will be adjusted if the price of ATOM falls 50%, but there are at least two other events that might merit reducing the debt: the Liquidation Ratio increasing, or the stability fee increasing to a level that exceeds the annual yield from the stableswap liquidity. The LR rising is just as…

Excerpt (1199 of 1489 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Bonjour,

la proposition est intéressante. J’ai quelques questions.

1. Après le Mint de IST, il faudra swapper IST contre d’autre stable coin ça peut faire un peu bouger le prix de l’ist sur osmosis ? Est-ce que quelqu’un a étudier le price impact ? (c’est pas un petit swap).

2. Est-ce que l’on pourrait implémenter un smart-contract qui gère le truc ? Comme ici ce sont des activités interchain, peut être que neutron pourrait héberger un smart contract qui gère les différentes opérations ? Si j’ai compris, le but de neutron c’est d’avoir des smarts contract multi-chain ? Ps : je sais que les smart contract ne sont pas autonome mais une incentive a faire tourner les actions doit faire l’affaire.

merci

X space discussion on Prop 899 happening today at 1600 UTC. Stride, Persistence, Timewave, Agoric, Inter Protocol, AtomAccelerator, DCF, Inter Protocol EC all being represented…

Check the Inter Protocol Twitter for details and link to set your reminder

Blockquote

0xcryptohannah:

Agoric is greatly aligned with Cosmos in that it locks up ATOM and increases the utility and capital efficiency of the asset. All of this helps the greater Cosmos ecosystem, increases ATOM demand, and favorably impacts the ATOM token economy.

Naive explanation. Selling 4% of ATOM community pool to LSTs wouldn’t increase ATOM demand at all, moreover there is more risk than the profit: LST risk, Liquidation Risk, Hack risks. Cosmos Hub doesn’t need any ATOM-staking revenue, Cosmos Hub needs in non-inflationary non-ATOM revenue. You are not locking ATOM at all, these CP ATOMs are already locked.

So the bottomline is; all this for ~2 million in stable liquidity? Involve everyone with considerable VP and market presence to get it pass?

I don’t believe ~2 million stable worth of liquidity requires this much of risk.

If you missed the X-Space focused on the proposal, hop over to the Inter Protocol twitter (@inter_protocol) and have a listen to the recording. Some great insights on the proposal and overall benefits to the Cosmos ecosystem.

Here are a few soundbites.

“A way that we can leverage the community pool to help as many Cosmos projects liquidity and the entire ecosystem as much as possible.” 0xcryptohannah

" The primary thing is adding liquidity. We will all be much better off by getting a more successful, more liquid, more active economy, and adding stabletoken liquidity that is valuable." DeanTribble

“If you look at Cosmos hub community pool, the size of the of the community pool is roughly, $100-$120m… million …and that liquidity is just sitting idle” youssef_amrani
*Prop #899 aims to mobilize 4% (eventually 10%) of those idle Atoms into yield generating LS assets.
…

1. 25% to Astroport IST/USDC.nbl pool

The proposal doesn’t specifiy which Astroport deployment and what pool type? Astroport is currently on 5 different chains (Osmosis, Terra, Neutron, Injective, and Sei). Will the liquidity be split up between the 5, or is it left to the discretion of the multisig members?

Yes, proposal should specify that the Astroport deployment is for Neutron, and that it will be using PCL, not XYK.

There’s a 3rd option, PCL might actually be a step down from Stable Swap Pools, which are meant for just this use case.

But the choice of Neutron as the chain might be blocked on the fact that it’s currently impossible to even create pools with IST in the UI for any Astroport instance except Osmosis, because no Agoric tokens are in the list of tokens at all, they only exist in osmosis.json.

Yeah, any token that wants to be added has to do a PR.

image780×283 15.2 KB

BCMO1:

“If you look at Cosmos hub community pool, the size of the of the community pool is roughly, $100-$120m… million …and that liquidity is just sitting idle” youssef_amrani
*Prop #899 aims to mobilize 4% (eventually 10%) of those idle Atoms into yield generating LS assets.

there is not $100-120million in the CP. half of that is NTRN.

Is this proposal trying to take 10% of $100-120million from the CP or 10% of the ATOM in the CP ($50million)?

luisqa:

Yeah, any token that wants to be added has to do a PR.

It doesn’t look like anyone from Agoric/the Inter Protocol/DCF has attempted to submit a PR over the last two weeks. Now that a final draft of the proposal is up, does that mean Astroport-Osmosis is the only Astroport Outpost this liquidity proposal is meant for?

dynstatic:

It looks like IST isn’t listed as an asset by Astroport on Neutron. (Neither is BLD.) You’d need to submit a pull request adding your tokens to

GitHub - astroport-fi/astroport-token-lists: Information and logos for tokens used in Astroport deployments

Considering a PR can be done in 5 minutes, don’t think there is an issue here. If there was an automatic deployment and this proposal was on chain, then it might be too late but multisig proposals like this one mean this can be done after it passes even and be done pretty efficiently.

It wouldn’t make any sense to allocate >50% of the funds to Osmosis and not deploy anything on Neutron/Astroport. In any case, hopefully we can get this made clear in the proposal to avoid any misunderstanding.

Voting No here.

It is an admirable try by IST but it truly has basically no usage atm and i dont see additional DEX liquidity propped up by Collateralized POL ATOM change that.

USK and SILK should be considered first as ideas for this type of proposal.

Additionally the ask is simply too high in comparison to the current IST marketcap and relevance of the project.

I agree, 4% of the community pool alone will not move demand at a high magnitude. However, the ripple effects of exemplifying the Inter vaults while deepening liquidity and making the whole ecosystem have deeper liquidity (and hence better user experience for participants) could lead to more community members following this strategy to increase their overall yield. If this can grow to happen at scale, with the community using their ATOM in vaults, that is where the locking benefit really begins to help the Cosmos ecosystem.

Astroport on Neutron only

10% of the ATOM in the CP

The hole proposal is non sense.
The best way to allocate community pool is providing liquidity for Cosmos Hub aligned projects. Full stop.
Atom Wars where projects should acquire ATOMs & vote to get that liquidity or in some other way.

IST liquidity or even its existence wont make any difference in the market which is predominated by USDC or USDT. Dont try to fool yourselves. Just answer yourself will you prefer IST or USDC when you sell an asset ? If the answer is USDC well there is no need to overthink trying to reinvent another stablecoin which will be used by dew users. Why do you even try to create liquidity for unused stable in expense of 10% of community pool??

The whole goal of broader Cosmos eco should be how to make ATOM a backbone, a universal account unit for entire Cosmos, create a token to rally around. The whole cosmos ecosystem , all projects would benefit from that. Thats all about $ATOM. Hence attracting projects to AEZ and use Community pool to provide liquidity to projects who wants it and have acquired an atom stake.

BTW, the pull request has been created, but not reviewed by Astroport yet.

Governance Proposal 899 allocating an initial 4% of the Cosmos Community Pool’s ATOM to be used to generate value for the Hub passed on 16 April 2024 with 60.1% turnout and 61.5% yes votes.
The DCF / Agoric Community Spend Proposal is now live for voting:

Mintscan

[Cosmos Explorer for 63+ Blockchains]

Aaah I was just coming to ask if this was a legit proposal as it showed up as a blank proposal on Keplr and was not sure if they did that because it’s not.

This is all you see on both the validator dashboard and leap:

Screen Shot 2024-04-19 at 5.49.08 PM1455×1034 70.9 KB

Screen Shot 2024-04-19 at 5.49.23 PM1586×858 48.5 KB

Yeh, gov text have been a bit hit and miss recently.

Mintscan is showing the full text fine on this one:

Mintscan

[Cosmos Explorer for 63+ Blockchains]

I am surprised to see someone as informed and educated as you make these claims. Before we further proceed with the discussion that I would love to can you please tell me how much liquidity in stAtom pool is of Communitypool(s)?

Fully agree with this. Very disappointed in this outcome.