[Prop955] [Passed] Re-routing PoL deployments through Hydro
Note: This is a revised version of Seeding Hydro’s buckets , which itself followed previous discussions on A new strategy for liquidity injections and Introducing the Hydro auction platform SUMMARY Community discussions following Seeding Hydro’s bucket surfaced a clear preference for rerouting existing PoL deployments into Hydro before exporting any additional funds from the Cosmos Hub community pool. Consequently, the on-chain proposal will no longer be a community spend proposal but rather a signaling proposal that requests members of the different multi-sigs involved in the existing PoL deployments to transfer fund custody to the Hydro committee. It suggests the following updates to the Hydro launch plan presented in the previous post : • Making LST buckets dynamic (i.e liquid-staking based on market demand) • Using LSM shares to vote from day-one (instead of stATOM) REROUTING EXISTING EXPORTS We initially believed that the Hub community would prefer to see Hydro proven out before reclaiming PoL funds. Based on feedback on the previous forum post and discussions with stakeholders, it appears that there is already broad support to begin a cohesive and…
Excerpt (1192 of 8205 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Still NO. Hydro is fundamentally an artifice. With minimal code implementations at its core imv. Despite being presented as community spend/signaling proposal, what the community is actually being asked to vote on and authorize is a POL governance structure. This is not so much “launch” of a platform as it is a continuation of the same committee-based power structures that have consistently failed users. The code-based elements of Hydro seem to be limited to smart contracts for auction mechanics and basic liquidity deployment algorithms. Whereas. the true functioning of Hydro as a “system” relies substantially on committee discretion and control, e.g.,: • Whitelist management for assets and actions • Performance monitoring and intervention • Decision-making on liquidity allocation and reallocation • Risk assessment and mitigation • Oversight of auction processes • Proposal development and execution Crucially, even the code aspects of Hydro are ultimately dependent on and subjugated to committee choice and power. This imbalance exposes Hydro’s true nature: just another jargon thick attempt to manipulate vast community resources under the pretense of “tech”.…
Excerpt (1199 of 3515 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
On behalf of the PRO Delegators’ validator , we fully endorse the proposal to reallocate the previously deployed liquidity to the upcoming Hydro platform. We recognize the author’s concern that a direct claw-back could lead to inevitable negative side effects and, thus, support the proposed nuanced, intermediate solution to facilitate the transition. The Hydro committee will oversee the transition period and remain accountable until the funds are deployed in a fully trustless manner on the Hydro platform. Some community members have consistently opposed the Hydro protocol, as highlighted by recent comments questioning the necessity of creating a liquidity auction platform altogether.. However, we contend that the real illusion is what has been perceived as “free liquidity” from the Hub until now. Hydro offers a viable solution to this existing issue, acknowledging that liquidity allocation inherently carries risks, thus can’t be free. Taking funds from the community pool in the millions without rational compensation is unacceptable, and Hydro addresses this concern . The auction system is community-based, allowing everyone to participate. It is not a committee-driven platform;…
Excerpt (1198 of 3307 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Thank you, Thyborg for presenting a reworked version upon receiving/implementing community feedback. – Thyborg: This talent pool is limited, and primarily found within high-profile Cosmos projects. Parties invovled: • Zaki Manian (Osmosis/Agoric: Iqlusion) • Valentin Plentev (Quasar) • Joni Z (AADAO) • Masha (Everstake) • Johnny Wyles (Osmosis) • Riley Edmunds (Stride) • Dean Tribble (Agoric) • Josh Lee (Keplr) • Bart Van der Voort • Carter Woetzel (Shade) • Jack Zampolin (Strangelove) • Avril Dutheil (Neutron) • Clemens Scarpatetti (Cryptocrew) • Sanjeev Rao (Leap Wallet) • Michael NG (StateWithUs) • Mikhil Pandey (Persistence) – Govmos: remember that this proposal is not about debating the merits of the Hydro platform itself. Instead, it focuses on the support for transferring custody “… to the Hydro committee. ” I understand this proposal initially aims to reallocate funds, but by rerouting the focus, are you not acknowledging the Hydro committee indeed has arguable merits? – Cosmos_Nanny: This imbalance exposes Hydro’s true nature: just another jargon thick attempt to manipulate vast community resources…
Excerpt (1198 of 2999 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
There are many projects that announced to use Hydro, this is organic demand for the Hydro product and atom. Still yes.
If a carton of eggs has an “organic” label stamped onto it, does that make it truly “organic” and void of any artificial properties?
Curious who “many projects” refer to, because if I understand correctly, the issue at hand is not Hydro as a conceptual product, more so the underlying recycling of funds/power to benefit the existing centralized committee(s).
Note that these people are part of the existing multi-sigs that control the funds (i.e they are the current custodians).
If this prop passes, the Hydro committee will be the new custodian for all the existing PoL deployments. And once Timewave integrations start rolling out, custody will be transferred to Hydro voters (i.e anyone who lock their LSM shares into Hydro)
In other words, Hydro has a path to PoL decentralization (the current approach doesn’t)
You’re spot on. What’s important is that Hydro is strictly better than the current PoL approach
Hydro v1 is strictly better than the current situation
Hydro’s endgame is to operate like Aave, Compound, Curve etc.
- Parameter approvals via governance votes
- Allocations through the auction system
- Automatic PoL deployments via Timewave
It’d be great to be able to snap our fingers and start with a fully permissionless, risk-minimizing & profit-maximizing system but sadly that’s not how product development works
It is not a best solution out there, but definitely it is an improvement to make the PoL decentralized. It is a more systematic and transparent approach.
@Govmos Isn’t it a COI if you vote yes on this prop being a committee member who is going to get paid in the future?
Additionally, you said in the validator review that Hydro committee members will be accountable until the funds are deployed. Are all the committee members KYC? Who is holding the KYC record ICF or Informal?
The Govmos Initiative is comprised of individuals who contribute independently and hold unique viewpoints on governance reforms. Phil_RX may be affiliated with our initiative and is a potential future committee member. However, Govmos’ collective stance does not necessarily align with Phil’s individual perspective. Regarding Hydro, we’ve consistently advocated for a financial risk committee to oversee intricate Protocol owned Liquidity (PoL) allocations. This commitment predates Hydro’s inception and was proposed before one of our members was suggested for a seat. To substantiate our independence, we encourage revisiting our earlier posts on the subject: • Source n°1: report on governance councils and treasuries • Source n°2: atom endgame, moneyness-security-liquidity • Source n°3: long-term strategy for the Cosmos Hub • Source n°4: atom wars, a new strategy for liquidity injections We actually believe that the reason why Phil was demanded to seat is a consequence of our long term contributions in the domain not the opposite. Nevertheless, we value community input and are open to abstaining PRO Delegators’ from votes if our association raises conflict of interest…
Excerpt (1197 of 1613 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I admire your work on this topic, I pointed it out as Phil_rex the proposed committee member is also a core member of PRO Delegators while some people might be okay with this I shared my discomfort in regards to COI.
While you are right about the legacy of the committee member and tied interests with the HUB, I believe this also sets a precedent for future committee members; some might not be as vested as current members. Secondly, the funds in control might exceed the vested interests in the cosmos hub. I think it is important to KYC committee members and Informal/ICF should hold a private record.
Your perspective has been noted and we will proceed accordingly, without further deliberation. We uphold our commitment to comply with community requests.
Thank you, much appreciated.
Hope all are well.
I find it very intriguing that governance discussions have been re-routed from this more pressing matter to a more grandiose pursuit, i.e. the “merge.” Prop #955 has seven days remaining.
Though its understood some centralization is needed for “faster” development, is it not the case that the merit of Hydro’s committee is still in deep question? Despite the proposed path to PoL leading to a more “decentralized” version, within this system are we not relying on this same, rebranded committee’s track record manipulating itself into deeper governance control?
Please do not misunderstand! I would love to be proven wrong here and cheer on for the success of Hydro, as I’d like to assume we all want ATOM to thrive and continue to steward its greatness.
Hello,
At this point, it’ll be assumed Hydro will pass, regardless what anyone tries to say. Clearly there are those “in power” here, without any regard to minority concerns.
Will root for Hydro’s success, despite differences, but if it ends up with no real fruit, I think it is more than fair to request that current leadership disband, and or completely restructure, the recycling, insider committees.
The fact that we re-wrote the original community spend proposal into a new one shows that we do care. I don’t see a way to launch Hydro on any kind of reasonable timeline without a committee. Even if we did wait for Timewave / Valence to be operational everywhere we need, giving full control of Hydro to a few voters on day one would be a major security risk (of course having a committee has its own risks but imo a lot more manageable)
Your committee is unmitigated risk ser lolol
Hello.
Congratulations on having this proposal pass to @Thyborg and team. It is indeed appreciated that time was taken to re-write the prop upon receiving community sentiment, however, still believe it is completely fair to request that the ongoing recycling insider committee:
Parties invovled:
• Zaki Manian (Osmosis/Agoric: Iqlusion)
• Valentin Plentev (Quasar)
• Joni Z (AADAO)
• Masha (Everstake)
• Johnny Wyles (Osmosis)
• Riley Edmunds (Stride)
• Dean Tribble (Agoric)
• Josh Lee (Keplr)
• Bart Van der Voort
• Carter Woetzel (Shade)
• Jack Zampolin (Strangelove)
• Avril Dutheil (Neutron)
• Clemens Scarpatetti (Cryptocrew)
• Sanjeev Rao (Leap Wallet)
• Michael NG (StateWithUs)
• Mikhil Pandey (Persistence)
be disbanded if Hydro does not yield results that exceed expectations. Wishing the best for Hydro’s delivery and team, for the interest of the overall community’s, not select cliques, collective goal to see ATOM succeed.