Note: This governance proposal is the product of two previous discussions on the topic of the ATOM Wars: A new strategy for liquidity injections and Introducing the Hydro auction platform This proposal requests approval on the transfer of 1M ATOMs from the Cosmos Hub community pool to the Hydro committee. 500K ATOMs will be used to seed an ATOM liquidity bucket and 500K ATOMs will be liquid staked with Stride to seed an stATOM liquidity bucket. Should Hydro’s performance be deemed satisfactory, more proposals for other transfers and other tokens may follow. Should it be deemed insufficient, the complete amount (plus or minus any gains/losses) will be returned to the community pool. STRATEGIC GOALS ICS Synergies: Chains want ICS agreements not only to bolster their security but also to align with the Hub & tap into its resources and user base. Hydro enhances ICS by streamlining protocol-owned liquidity allocation to consumer chains, thereby reducing governance friction & making sure the Hub continues to be the best place to launch a chain Value Accrual: Hydro generates value through the tributes paid by bidders and the yield from deploying liquidity into DeFi protocols.…

Excerpt (1199 of 11259 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Sounds great. You guys have really put some thought in to making this work, and there should be some incoming demand early.

What’s the timeline for other liquid staking protocols to be used? I recall Stride’s early exclusivity being partially a matter of convenience for V1’s implementation.

This is super exciting. Well done to all your involved in reaching this stage.

Can I ask about existing POL. I assume the intention is to revoke the existing deals and trust that parties like Persistence, Stride, Agoric and Osmosis all use Hydro. I would full support this.

Obviously there are number of different interests at play which is understandable in a project as complex as this. The good thing is that all of the people involved are professionals with great reputations. Are all members in agreement with returning all POL to the Hub’s CP? And if so when are we likely to see proposals for such returns?

how is the hub suppose to be in the market of selling security when it’s happy for it’s governance to be undermined? community pools should never be used to dilute existing stake holders, the fact that this needs to be pointed out is astounding.

As i stressed before there should be multiple lst providers including from the start.
we once again find ourselves with a committee with members with extreme conflict of interest. I warned some months ago that the optics here will be bad, and they are. congrats.

Can we slowly reclaim the millions of ATOM just freely given out for POL and have chains actually use Hydro?

Otherwise the chains/apps with a headstart don’t even need to use it.

Can we slowly reclaim the millions of ATOM just freely given out for POL and have chains actually use Hydro?

Otherwise the chains/apps with a headstart don’t even need to use it.

why not do this first and use this instead of 18% of the CP.

I’d assume we’ll be seeing props go up soon to start the clawback process. No more free lunches after Hydro.

Liquidity and friction? Idk.

Idc how its done tbh, as long as it we’re done with the free lunch.

Thank you sir, and that’s correct, we’re already researching the best way to make it possible to lock ATOM into Hydro through LSM shares instead of stATOM

Absolutely. We need Hydro to launch first, but I’ve explained below how we intend to re-route all exports through Hydro

[DRAFT PROPOSAL] Lend ATOM on Mars v2 on Neutron Community Spend

At Informal, we’re developing Hydro specifically to provide projects like Mars an easier, faster and more efficient access to the Cosmos Hub community pool funds. One of Hydro’s goals is to eliminate the need for ad hoc governance proposals such as this one. Hydro is beneficial to projects like Mars in that they no longer have to prepare and socialize a forum prop, make guesses around acceptable amount of liquidity exports, set up a new multi-sig and many other such tedious steps. All that come…

We did consider this option but some of these exports are currently used in Cosmos DeFi to backstop liquidations, support caps etc. so it would affect all of these projects negatively. It is a lot easier to claw back & re-route once Hydro is up-and-running

Yes this is the plan, and as far as I know everyone is in agreement, as long as this is done carefully to avoid negatively affecting the projects that currently benefit from the PoL deployments

Thyborg:

Preview of the Hydro’s user dashboard where voters will view bids & rewards*

Regarding the lock-in period of 1 year is a bit too long
Income that is not as expected, profit settlement, and urgent need for funds will make the pledge more unstable.
I think a 1-3 month lockdown is enough to run this flywheel
Loyalty is not about who is locked up for a long time
The most important thing is to be able to participate for a long time. This model mainly promotes atoms. The profit is too small to mention, so there is no need for long-term locking.
The locked profits will decrease as the number of people increases, and there is no guarantee that profits will always remain high.
Then locking it down for a long time will be counterproductive.
Otherwise, you can try a lock-in period of 1-3 years
balanced game

The whole idea looks good, But it gives uneven advantages to Stride.

• 500K ATOM will generate roughly 70K Atom a year in staking reward and Stride will charge us 10% for that, and HUB will get 15% of that 10% you highlighted.
• Stride does not stake with a reasonable amount of val set but instead they stake with 32 val only. They have implemented a system on Osmosis to stake with most of the set why not on HUB?
• Why not stkAtom and qAtom?

Thyborg:

Staking APR: The ATOMs in the Community Pool are currently being diluted by the yearly inflation rate (currently at 10%). Using Stride means that the community pool now gets a staking APR as well.

That is true, but CP gets filled per block basis more than the staking reward. vaguest argument.?1?

Again I want to mention, that Stride is not an NPO/NGO we all so want success for. it has no doubt added value in the ecosystem but don’t give them favours over others, this is nepotism.

I will Vote no because it gives unjustifiable advantages to Stride.

Thyborg: An stATOM liquidy bucket has the following Hydro-related benefits (as opposed to a bigger native ATOM liquidity bucket): • DeFi market: The demand for stATOM in the Cosmos DeFi market is stronger than native ATOM’s demand. Stride has integrated its derivatives into 21 projects across Cosmos (12 of them for stATOM), which are all potential participants in the ATOM Wars. • Hurdle rate: ATOM holders face inflation dilution. This is not the case for stATOM holders. DeFi users favor liquid staking derivatives for their investments. A liquidity bucket with stATOMs addresses this problem. • BD support: The Stride team will be incentivized to promote ATOM Wars to its integration partners. This creates a positive spiral by stimulating competition for funds, and increasing hATOM holders revenues. • Staking APR: The ATOMs in the Community Pool are currently being diluted by the yearly inflation rate (currently at 10%). Using Stride means that the community pool now gets a staking APR as well. Is there a technical reason why you need a second bucket, instead of just dynamically converting ATOM to stATOM when a specific proposal requires it, or just allowing the…

Excerpt (1194 of 2197 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I love the idea of Hydro, or ATOM Wars, and was really excited for this prop to go live, as Astrovault intends to participate.

Some concerns however; this was supposed to protect ATOM liquidity from what’s happened with Stride. The opposite seems to be the case and is very concerning. This should be a signaling prop to clawback existing POL and they can lease it from the community pool through Hydro.

Additionally there are extremely strong conflicts of interest in the committees. In general that’s inevitable as people with experience should be the ones leading the charge… but with an “executive role” in allocating liquidity, this seems a lot like the same people pushing their same projects at the expense of the community pool.

REALLY hoping for different as this is a very promising move for POL direction. I hope this is amended.

This is the right way to do it.

The community pool is backstopping liquidations…

Ya that’s a problem. If they want collateral they can get it through Hydro right?

It sounds like a nice idea to get this show on the road. However, the naming of the persons of the committee worries me enormously. We are always wondering why the Cosmos-ecosystem hasn’t got massive traction yet. One element is the need for abstracting away from all different appchains on a UX-level so that users don’t feel the underlying infrastructure. The second point on top of that is the expectancy that people can do 3-4 full-time jobs AT THE SAME TIME. I see names in this list who are already fully loaded with the tasks they have and we are going to add MORE? How the h*ll are those people expected to do a proper job at any of these assignments? I have heard the excuse of having a small pond to fish from for capable people, but not allowing new names to enter the sets also doesn’t grow the pond, does it? I have started preaching exclusivity in roles for chains/projects already during the first iteration of the Osmosis Support Lab and I am going to shake that tree on a very short notice on some other subjects as well. It would be cool however if that mistake would not be made here and we would see some fresh and willing names who can add value to the Cosmos-ecosystem…

Excerpt (1198 of 1207 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This seems like a really good feedback, we definitely need to consider that idea

Talking purely from the perspective of Astrovault, is there any difference on whether the claw-backs should come first or second?

About the committee members, unless we decide to give everyone full-time salaries, my sense is that it is an almost impossible task to find experienced people that don’t also work for Cosmos projects

my two cents of the year: committees suck.

Wouldn’t be a dealbreaker, but from our perspective we’re already willing to spend more for what other projects get for free over and over… kinda sucks.

For us as Atom stakers, it would make a huge difference in that total demand would be much higher in the case of clawing back first (incl. grace period obv.)

Sure bring the buckets online but first auction only with all POL removed.

We love Stride and the Stride team but:

The atom community pool should consider Drop, Quark, and other chain native liquid staking projects if they want to succeed in pushing ATOM as liquidity on all Cosmos Zones.

More comments on the rest of the proposal will follow.

Thyborg:

However, as Hydro gains momentum and the workload involved becomes significant, a compensation scheme will be worked out.

Will the compensation scheme be discussed and budgeted with the community when/If the time comes?

Hard NO.

Decision: HARD NO.

Rationale:

1. Undisclosed material conflicts of interest
2. Lack of transparency regarding proposer’s employer’s stake in $STRD
3. Potential self-dealing to the detriment of community interests

Condition for Reconsideration:

A comprehensive disclosure statement from @informalinc is mandatory, including but not limited to:

1. Detailed breakdown of Informal Systems’ stake in Stride:
   a. Validator position and rewards
   b. Token holdings
   c. Any direct investments

2. Full disclosure of individual investments in Stride by Informal Systems’ principals

3. Clear acknowledgment of all potential conflicts of interest

4. If possible, an explanation of how these conflicts will be managed to ensure community benefit.

Conclusion:

This proposal is categorically rejected in its current form. No reconsideration will be entertained without the aforementioned comprehensive disclosure statement from @informalinc @Thyborg
The integrity of community governance demands disclosure.

I will vote against until at least two LSTs participate and the conflict of interest is resolved.

Well crafted prop and I really resonate with the idea of using ATOM from the CP to bootstrap ATOM liquidity within the AEZ and broader Interchain, while simultaneously putting idle sitting $ATOM to work, earning some revenue for ATOM stakers.

Stride is the largest LST provider for ATOM, it’s part of the AEZ and has a soldi track record. Hence I don’t really understand why so many ppl are upset about them being chosen to liquid stake 500K ATOM.

However I agree with @Cosmos_Nanny that there are some undisclosed conflicts of interest between the two involved parties, Informal and Stride.

This is a clear YES vote, but only, if Informal Systems releases a public disclosure statement outlining their stake in Stride, as proposed by Cosmos Nanny.

The composition of the Committee members seems reasonable to me. It’s a thankless job that has to be done by someone, and I rather have some experienced folks that know what they are doing, are familiar with the procedures and have some skin in the game, rather than some newbies or outsiders that have little background knowledge about the Hub.

Agree with the past few posters.

1. 0 issues with Stride having a large allocation bucket. They have chosen to be closely aligned with the Hub’s interests, while other LST providers have not.
2. At the same time, I wish all LST providers were included from day 1.
3. Personally don’t suspect any foul play as some seem to be alluding to, however, disclosure is important nonetheless.

As an aside, Drop is coming soon. They’ll also fit in the AEZ bucket, so hopefully they receive the same treatment as Stride as a first class citizen of the AEZ.

We’re excited about Hydro! This could be an interesting platform to monetize ATOM liquidity around the interchain. This is partly the reason why we are supporting and pushing to have DAODAO on the Hub as soon as possible, since DAODAO is a dependency for Hydro. We would however be remiss in our duties as stewards of the Cosmos Hub, if we didn’t ask you to consider the community feedback. You should consider executing on the clawbacks you indicated, first, before seeding the Hydro platform with more Community Pool funding. Since there is already enough CP money floating around, we believe the community would prefer that Hydro’s seed comes from those clawbacks. We should also note here, with Hub governance recently approving a gov-controlled ICA account on Neutron , we are currently in discussions about migrating funds that we are custoding on behalf of the Hub ( ATOM/stATOM on Astroport Neutron ) to Timewave (now called Valence). This would eliminate the need to have a multisig to exercise the wishes of governance on PoL deals. That particular PoL deal was negotiated as part of Stride’s deal to onboard on to Interchain Security , for which Stride is already…

Excerpt (1187 of 1483 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Why do we “need” to launch Hydro first?

While this isn’t a Stride proposal, we’re chiming in as Stride contributors because this affects Stride as a member of the ecosystem, and we would like to clarify our view: Stride supports Hydro v1 treating all ATOM LSTs equally. Over the past few days, there has been a flurry of discussion around Cosmos Hub’s upcoming Hydro protocol. As always, passionate community discussion is always a good thing, because it shows there are many people who deeply care about Cosmos Hub. The strength of the community is the strength of the chain. As the Hydro forum post makes clear , Hydro will eventually be completely neutral regarding ATOM LSTs. Stride contributors are aware of and supportive of this eventual development of Hydro. Informal Systems, the development company designing Hydro, likely chose a single ATOM LST in Hydro v1 temporarily to get it to market quickly (reduce the complexity of v1) and support an ICS chain while v2 is being developed. The feedback from the community makes clear that they highly value neutrality from the outset. If it is desired by Cosmos Hub governance, then Stride contributors support launching Hydro v1 with full neutrality regarding ATOM LSTs from…

Excerpt (1196 of 1865 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

First I’d like to thank @Thyborg , the Informal team and all those involved in building Hydro. I believe there is a big need to streamline POL deployment in a more beneficial way for the $ATOM and its Stakers. We, at Citadel One, are excited for Hydro’s launch. However, I feel like some of the concerns raised need to be addressed before moving forward. Specifically, the choice to deploy half of liquidity seed to a stATOM liquidity buckets. Here are a few thoughts about why we’d be in favour of deploying all liquidity in an $ATOM bucket: • Bidders will bear the commission cost: With the current approach, the Hub’s CP will bear the commission costs incurred by Stride for the entire period regardless of the demand on stATOM liquidity. On the other hand with a single liquidity bucket of $ATOM, Projects winning auctions who chose to deploy their liquidity to LSTs will have to bear the cost incurred by liquid staking with Stride (or any other provider). It’s worth noting that this could lead to less demand for LSTs-related use cases as projects will have to factor in 21-day period to unstake ATOM before returning it. But at this early stage, this could be addressed by…

Excerpt (1191 of 2570 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

HYDRO: A Trojan Horse for More Centralization Lauding the “optimization” of POL? Please. This proposal’s just another scheme for centralized control, with more first-mover entrenchment. Real solutions that merit your time and consideration are built with neutrality and competitive balance as features from the outset , not as an afterthought, or as a promised “eventuality.” Hydro is classic Informal playbook: privileged positioning for themselves and their cronies, with zero value for $ATOM holders. It’s buzzword exploitation masquerading as innovation. Demand financial disclosures. And have them found out. Let’s dissect this Hydro farce : • Power Centralization : A 7-member Hydro committee? Please bruv. It’s oligarchy masquerading as optimization against hub governance. With clear conflicts of interest, this committee is compromised by its very composition. • Competitive Sabotage : This isn’t leveling the playing field; it’s cementing Stride’s market position, accruing benefits for their whitelisted vals, and everyone that has a sizable bag of $STRD. “Eventual neutrality” is moot when the game’s sufficiently rigged. • Auction Integrity : Impossible under these…

Excerpt (1199 of 4554 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

hi Grace

since we are into the (lack of) disclosure theme, since you’re one of the loud voices of Atom’s community, since you were the architect of the anti-Atom 2.0 campaign, and since more than one cartel are armful to the ecosystem,

could you disclose the content of the deal you made with Jae before he dropped the lawsuit?

There’s no “deal” to reveal.

There was a settlement.
He dropped the lawsuit with prejudice – meaning he can’t sue me again. And AiB reimbursed my legal fees.

And wtf does Atom2 or me whipping votes for NWV have to do with any of this?

I’m my own person, Tom. Even the gov work you reference with the implied meaning that it’s somehow problematic – I did not do those things at the “behest” of the company or Jae Kwon. I wanted to do it. It was my idea. Jae didn’t think it was possible. My voice and my opinions regarding Cosmos during and post AiB employment are entirely my own. For you to keep insinuating that my opinions are not my own is beginning to feel sexist, disrespectful and a bit deranged since it’s your only method of clap back at me. It’s demeaning that despite all the bullshit I went through, you still think that what I think lacks agency. And your small mind hazards towards theorizing I made an illicit bargain with Jae bc he voted to support my elected role on AADAO oversight. That any opinion I may have is a product of quid pro quo. It’s not. Jae voted for me bc he knows better than anyone else that I can’t be bought. My voice sits on a spectrum of insubordination/independence and he thinks that makes me effective in an oversight capacity. Your repetitive and moronic question only serve your masters who wish to advance the firm grip of partisanship and allegiance-driven agendas. Bc…

Excerpt (1194 of 1745 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi Grace I appreciate your passion for all things ATOM and believe that you stand for the interest of the retail staker (like myself).

At the same time I am noting that your language can be percieved as agressive and/or condencenting which does not help your/our course.

tu sais @Cosmos_Nanny ce n’est pas tant ta personne qui me pose problème, mais je me méfie toujours des gens qui utilisent 20 fois le mot “cartel” en 30 lignes, d’où qu’ils viennent. comme de ceux qui semblent déceler cartelisation et corruption à la perfection quand il s’agit d’un groupe de personnes, mais gardent leurs oeillères bien en place quand il s’agit d’analyser les pratiques identiques voire pires de leurs proches présents ou passés, en détournant l’attention par de la philosophie quasi christique. bref, il y a des critiques et demandes justes dans ce que tu énonces. et il y a aussi les symptômes d’une obsession par l’utilisation d’autres “buzzwords” que ceux que tu dénonces, des buzzwords qui attisent les haines et théories foireuses sans fondement factuel. je m’éloigne petit à petit de cette communauté. pour de multiples raisons. l’une d’entre elle étant cette never-ending chasse aux sorcières (et les méthodes pour ce faire) qui castre l’innovation et nourrit le ressentiment. ce qu’il faudrait peut-être commencer à se dire, c’est que je ne dois pas être le seul dans ce cas. bonne continuation o/ ps: i will ALWAYS deny Jae.…

Excerpt (1162 of 1241 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi All, Thought it would be good to address some of the concerns we’ve seen and provide a bit more context on where Informal is A major motivating purpose of Hydro is to address what has become an unaccountable mess of PoL proposals to the Hub’s CP. There are 4 of them outstanding already (>2M ATOM worth), no one seems to track them, they pay no direct rewards back to the Hub, they’re painful to deal with on a one-off basis, and there’s more coming. The goal of Hydro is to create a proper platform for managing that instead. There seems to be general alignment behind that goal and a Hydro style solution. If you think that’s misguided, or if you think there’s a better solution or if the original problem is misidentified, we’d be eager to hear why. It’s definitely true that the funds for Hydro should come from the existing PoL outstanding. Our feeling was that this will be a bit complicated and take time, and we thought folks might want to see Hydro proven out more before rerouting those funds. But we definitely agree all of those funds should be clawed back and rerouted through Hydro, and have been saying as much the whole time. We can certainly work up a proposal for how to…

Excerpt (1197 of 6039 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you for this clarification. I really like the idea of kuji/drop involvement too. You guys are doing a great job i believe. Many critics are subject to strong outcome bias which is not entirely correlated to your work.

I noticed there were a few people asking for clarity on the proportion of stATOM in circulation that is made up of POL + the general organic demand / utility for stATOM, so I ran some rough numbers.

RoboMcGobo 💙 (@RoboMcGobo) on X

Note: these are rough numbers taken from over a dozen defi apps where ATOM and stATOM are deployed, but this should be quite close.

Because it’s very difficult to get data from Osmosis on the composition of tokens in a pool without querying the position ID directly, I just assumed the stATOM / ATOM composition in that POL position was 50/50. This represents an overestimation on the number of stATOM minted due to POL, but I figured it’d be better to overestimate than underestimate in this case (margin of error probably 5-10%). I can probably get a more exact count this coming week if folks are interested!

GM! Thank you for putting this proposal out on the forum!

There are some clear benefits associated

• The strategic goals and benefits for the Cosmos Hub and ATOM are well-articulated, showing that this is a good-faith proposal
• The potential for additional revenues and improved liquidity management would most definitely benefits the depth of cosmos markets.

These are a few concerns I have:

• The initial transfer of a significant amount of ATOMs is somewhat risky. Especially when the success of the Hydro platform and committee’s effectiveness remains to be proven.
• To this end, the plan needs to be re-adjusted to a milestone-based seeding, where each milestone such as X% increase in TVL or trading volume yields X amount of TOM from the committee

Overall, as a community, we should be cautious when it comes to the significant transfer of community funds and ensure that there are adequate performance monitoring and accountability mechanisms in place.

I agree here with you that it would be much better to have the committee members go full-time. But since this not a reasonable thing to ask for an unpaid job, we’ll have to wait for Hydro to be proven successful & profitable before we can make it happen. In the meantime, if you have some “fresh” people to suggest, we would definitely consider them

We’re looking at dynamically liquid-staking the required amount of ATOM as needed (based on what projects bid for) instead of creating buckets. If we have that, all LS protocols will be able to export their tokens through Hydro. We are also talking to Drop to integrate them after they launch

Yes. Committee members have agreed to work unpaid for the next few months so we can all get a better sense of the workload first.

I agree with essentially everything you wrote here. The main issue is that the round duration is currently 1 month, so with a 21 days un-staking period, this would only give an effective export duration of 9 days. As you point out, we can increase the round duration, but it would have to be closer to something like a 6-12 months to be worth it. The other option is to swap instead of un-staking, and this is what we’re currently exploring

Hey guys just want to voice out that I am leaning more towards a no for this proposal.

I am still unclear what the ROI for hydro will be in the next year? What’s the end benefit in dollars/ATOMs to the community pool.

As much as I am a fan of stride I would like to hear more about why they are the only provider and what about the already given grants? Maybe first plan for claw back and then issue the same amounts via hydro?

One million is $6Million USD and very big portion of the community pool can we split this into multiple proposals with different stages with each stage having a clear goal before the next segment can be handed out for this deployment?

Best,
Mohammed

Thanks for the feedback & questions.

The ROI will be the tributes paid by bidders to the Hydro voters & community pool. The more competitive the bidding, the higher the ROI.

Based on community sentiment, we’re planning to make a number of updates to this proposal. One of them is to re-route all the existing PoL exports through Hydro. We’re trying to find the best way to do that without affecting these projects negatively.

mohammedtaherpatla:

我還是不清楚明年水電的投資報酬率是多少？

I don’t like this return on investment, it can never be as good as the pledge profit of the total assets

I think it’s a simple math
1 person participates and you can get all the meat
100,000 people participate and you can only get soup
If the universe were successful, there would not be only 100,000 people
It is no longer necessary to divide it into four ratios of locking time

Long-term staking and locking in exchange for disappointing profits will be a disaster

I prefer to use atom locking to be able to bid

If allowed, the original 21 days can be changed to four ratios: 3 days, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months, to obtain different pledge interest rates and bidding rights

Collect profits, use or destroy them

Keeping a simple, easy-to-use and sustainable universe

For the Osmosis share of the POL:
90% that was deployed in a static position is now out of range - it is entirely backing ATOM rather than being stATOM.
The 10% in a vault is still in use at about 50/50
Source

As a specific range was quoted in the proposal this can’t be directly rebalanced, but does still provide the key purpose of this liquidity in enabling liquidations to occur smoothly.

Then still it would be interesting to put out a request for people before assigning them.

What would be better; having to replace people later on for fresh ones who then have to catch up OR have the fresh people already in and grow with the product where needed?
It already goes wrong with the initial setup to not spend some time finding fresh insights, but to keep fishing in the same pool.

People who I have positive experiences with are for example @RealVovochka or the guys from StableLab. But that is just from my small circle and I can imagine there are tons of others out there who will just fit the profile perfectly as well and who do not take focus away from other projects.

First, thank you Thyborg for your time/effort in helping shape Hydro’s vision/putting this prop up. I can only imagine how much bandwidth you have with everything on your plate already, which i’d imagine is no easy feat. Concern #1: LeonoorsCryptoman: How the h*ll are those people expected to do a proper job at any of these assignments? Despite the appointed committee agreeing to work w/o pay for the first few months, which is commendable , what immediately comes to mind is why wasn’t input sought from the general Hub community in regards to the makeup of this team? Perhaps, and understandably so, this is due to the call/push for “faster development,” but within the current, chaotic climate that is Cosmos Hub governance, I don’t believe it would have been a bad idea. As clearly voiced in many other comments, there seem to be clear conflicts of interest via affiliations that are not made fully transparent , which is one of Cosmos Hub’s original values. Thyborg: This seems like a really good feedback, we definitely need to consider that idea Considering select feedback is still considering feedback, so thank you. Concern #2:…

Excerpt (1185 of 2426 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you @FHZ we’ve been working on a revised version of this proposal which hopefully will address some if not all of your concerns.

Strong support for Hydro, it’s about time Cosmos Hub has product with a market