Make ATOM great again
MAKE COSMOS GREAT AGAIN The situation for ATOM is dire. It’s died at least 3 times before, but unless ATOM changes soon (not next year, not next month, today ) it will fade into irrelevance. ATOM’s first death was In 2020, when the core Cosmos team split up and left AiB, but AiB kept most of the pre-mined ATOM. Its second death was in 2022, when ATOM 2.0 failed. Finally, in 2024, ATOM died when it was declared dead by the rest of the world. But ATOM isn’t dead, because there’s still a passionate community surrounding it. While ATOM’s alive, the situation is dire. We’re watching ATOM grind down to 0, and without drastic change NOW, this won’t change. As of August 14, 2024, ATOM is hovering around $4.7, while SOL is at $145. 1.5 years ago, they were the same price . The situation has never been worse for the Cosmos Hub; builders use the SDK but distance themselves from the Cosmos brand, and neither venture nor retail investors want to touch Cosmos tokens. The final nail in Cosmos Hub’s coffin is that ecosystem leadership lacks the force of will, the incentive, or both to make the required changes. Cosmos inspired a generation of builders, and the Cosmos SDK and Tendermint…
Excerpt (1199 of 3968 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hey, I’m just passing by because I was curious to see if my tweet would spark a reaction haha.
I am no longer in ATOM today, but I feel like the chain has to take some necessary risks if it wants to try to be relevant again.
There are people involved in this community who I know would be heavily against these propositions, but mostly for the wrong reasons.
You either give the market what it wants or you go to zero. This is a direction voters can decide on today. As for me, I’ve already made my choice months ago.
Thanks for your input. I look forward to hearing all perspectives, especially from those opposed.
Once this has been sufficiently discussed, I will be moving forward with onchain proposals.
Hello, MCGA. Firstly want to applaud the enthusiasm, as I mirror the energy. • If the result of inflation being lowered to 10%, via “The ATOM halving” ( prop#848 ), hasn’t help push user adoption, why would 2-4%? If it hasn’t been implemented already, why not completely remove the 7% minimum bound and have the CP tax increased? By Transitioning to 10%, we’ve seen: • 2.0’s trojan horse advance and achieve Steady governance takeover • ATOM’s stashed into separate, centralized treasury pools outside the Cosmos Hub • increased control through leverage, such as through (risky/unproven) liquid staking • Lowering block times sound great • Why can’t Permissionless CosmWasm exist and fully thrive outside the hub as an ICS chain? Not only would this continue to help promote ICS as a Cosmos Hub product, it would achieve the broader, collective mission to onboard users, maintain the integrity of the Cosmos Hub, all the while naturally accrue value back to ATOM. Though the intention sounds great, this unfortunately sounds like yet another sly pivot to take from the staking incentive (earning transaction fee’s + rewards) to benefit the select few, ultimately making a mockery of…
Excerpt (1196 of 1273 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hello @MAGA , Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the state of the Cosmos Hub and recognizing its strengths and weaknesses. To provide some perspective, we will elaborate on your statements and propositions. To share some context to this review, we would like to emphasize that we have been Cosmos contributors since 2020, we have team members working at all levels of the technology stack, infrastructure (we operate the PRO Delegators’ validator ), governance (with the Govmos Initiative account you’re reading now), technical support to project, and financial & strategy advisory for teams. Through these various interactions with the Hub, we have developed a thoughtful vision of its strengths and weaknesses. While our analysis reveals different conclusions, we will share a summarized version of it, hoping to provide additional perspective for you and other readers of this thread. Strengths You correctly pointed out that the Hub’s community is great . You mentioned we have survived multiple crises, and we agree. On the technical side, the Hub has managed to deliver on the 2017 promises and beyond. The adoption is significant, and the pace is still strong. Cosmos is one…
Excerpt (1199 of 7233 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Govmos:Nevertheless, real-world economics prove that government is needed and that centralized control is detrimental to societal prosperity.
A modern and centralized government has historically been good for a nation’s prosperity, so I’m not sure to understand that logic.
In the cryptocurrency market, centralized organizations have been much better at building a strong ecosystem (eg: Solana) versus Cosmos, as the one Solana chain dwarves the 50 Cosmos chains in terms of users and economic activity.
As for you technical analysis argument, you are making a risk/reward proposition. In such a trade, you need to know what’s your invalidation point. So at what price would you consider your argument null ?
Thank you.
After stagnation and progress being stopped, I see signs of mindshare surrounding the Hub trying to make up for lost time. It’s not perfect, and there are legitimate criticisms for some of the ideas being brought to market, but it’s moving forward with a concerted effort from multiple teams. These v1 products will turn in to v2’s, and we’ll see if that’s enough for the Hub to carve out some important niches for the ecosystem.
I’m not sure the ideas in this post would really move the needle. Atom has a demand issue, not a supply issue. If these ongoing developments work out, some confidence and demand should return over time. Undoubtedly a tall task when we’re in the pit of despair, but I think enough people care about the Hub to not just let it wither away.
What we really need right now is more people getting involved. If other sectors of the ecosystem contribute and try to help the Hub live up to its potential, things could look a lot different a year from now.
A strong Atom is a stronger Cosmos.
Thank you for your response, you raise good points. Let me respond to each. • My initial post wasn’t clear - I think we should target a staking APR of 2-4%. Staking APR is still at 15.10%! There are two massive problems with this. First , the funding rate to short ATOM is generally positive, and when it’s negative, it’s less than the staking APR. That means, many existing ATOM holders are likely staking, hedging out ATOM exposure, and selling staking rewards. Leeches! Lower inflation neutralizes this strategy. Second , 15%, even 10%, is too high a staking reward to incentivize usage in defi. We want the ATOM token to be loved, and used! It’s been a staking token for 5 years. What’s that gotten us? The dispersion in returns tells a clear story. We ran the experiment, and SOL won. The path forward is clear; the market wants fast L1s. Even Ethereum is starting to realize this, with pushes to fix defi on the L1. This is perhaps the most important point, because the other points follow from this one. I expect pushback on this point from two groups, farmers bleeding ATOM dry (described above) and validators. To validators, I say this: ATOM has the potential to go to $100,…
Excerpt (1195 of 2759 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I’m glad we can agree on one point - that the Cosmos Hub community is its strength. Your other views are deeply misguided. I’m going to focus on two • Cosmos Hub’s governance “weakness” being a strength • The Wyckoff TA First, I didn’t say Cosmos Hub governance is its greatest weakness. I said its inability to adapt to changing conditions is. Governance forum gridlock is a symptom of not having strong leadership to put forward new ideas. Disorganization is not decentralization. The Cosmos Hub network can remain decentralized, without having a disorganized forum and considering all viewpoints. Do you know what happens when you take the average of everyone’s viewpoint. Nothing! Second, TA is nonsense. What drives price is innovation and adoption, not patterns on a chart or the stars in the sky. If we’re patient and do nothing, ATOM is going to die. Consider this, why would anyone buy ATOM today? Shared security has low PMF, and Cosmos Hub has strong competition running points programs, pre-TGE. Cosmos Hub can continue iterating on ICS, even put development resources towards it, and at the same time move into a much bigger market, in which it can compete, today, by…
Excerpt (1196 of 1257 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Strongly disagree. ATOM has demand! Look how active governance forums are. Cosmos has an extraordinary group of developers, and a passionate community.
Its supply issue is this: there’s no incentive aligned way to build on ATOM. ICS doesn’t benefit ATOM the token.
but it’s moving forward with a concerted effort from multiple teams
We got the report card for the past two years, and ATOM is flat while Solana is up 15x. Objectively, this is not the case.
The world can be surprisingly malleable, why are you afraid of trying new things? Are you happy with the status quo? Do you wake up every day, excited about ATOM? I do, and making these changes would light a small fire, bringing back talented folks that want to bet on ATOM. We’d have to tend to it, of course, but a small fire is better than none.
Why not MAGA? Make Atom Great Again sounds better.
I appreciate your thoughtful response @MAGA
Having misunderstood your point to reduce staking inflation ties into the last portion of my initial response. Understandably, ones guards are up towards these alleged insider groups, who seemingly continue maneuvering their way to increase their governance control OUTSIDE the Cosmos Hub.
I still believe, if changes are to be proposed, is modifying the CP tax and if not already implemented, removing the 7% (edit: minimum inflation) bound.
MAKE ATOM GREAT AGAIN is better. Done!
Hi, @MAGA.
Since you shared that you are not a holder of ATOM, nor have vested interest in any org that does, curious to know if you’re an advocate of liquid staking, i.e. Stride? This is by no means a way to discredit Stride, in any way shape or form, however in relation to maintaining ATOM’s decentralized governance ON the Cosmos Hub, I am led to ask.
Maintain Atom’s Greatness Always.
Cheers
EDIT RE the CP tax. It does seem to have been updated through Prop#88 from 2%-10%. By increasing this % rate further, reverting the current 10% max inflation limit via Prop#848, and leaving the staking rate alone for now, should be the path forward, especially if the concern is to rid fishy “leeches,” from any camp.
tknox35:A strong Atom is a stronger Cosmos.
I am not sure that this is true. On map of zones over the last 30 days, ATOM doesn’t even show up on my screen as a top IBC hub. The first 7 or 8 chains are not ATOM. A couple of years ago ATOM was the top IBC hub.
IBC is doing well without ATOM.
Uhh, yeah. Atom’s not strong right now, so people aren’t using it as much. By far the most widely distributed and liquid token in the eco. If the tide turns on the fundamentals surrounding it (and the sentiment repairs itself) obviously more people will be using it like they used to.
Don’t have a strong opinion on liquid staking or Stride. A pushback to adding CosmWasm on Cosmos Hub is that it’d disadvantage Stride and Neutron, as ICS chains. The opposite is probably true. As ATOM goes up, more users enter the ecosystem, and chains connected to Cosmos Hub (Stride, Neutron, also Osmosis and other IBC chains) do better.
As an example, look at how Osmosis benefited from Terra (pre-collapse) in 2021.
EDIT RE the CP tax. It does seem to have been updated through [Prop#88] from 2%-10%. By increasing this % rate further, reverting the current 10% max inflation limit via Prop#848, and leaving the staking rate alone for now, should be the path forward, especially if the concern is to rid fishy “leeches,” from any camp.
My proposal doesn’t address the community pool tax
There is no market for CosmWasm on the Hub. There is already permissionless CosmWasm on Neutron and Neutron is secured by the Hub so from a technical standpoint you have CosmWasm on the Hub already. But it is even better than CosmWasm on the Hub because failure of Neutron doesn’t halt the Hub.
If you don’t understand the above paragraph, you hardly understand anything about the Cosmos Hub.
The problem is nobody is using Neutron. People had all these visions of developers jumping to use CosmWasm in 2020 and they aren’t. It is not 2020 anymore. Then both Cosmos and Solana (and Polkadot) were new chains offering Rust smart contracts and could claim to get all the developers. Not today. It is now 4 years later and all the Rust smart contract developers have chosen Solana. Neutron doesn’t have any meaningful competitive advantages vs Solana.
People should also stop extrapolating Terra’s “success” that could potentially happen at Cosmos Hub. There was no success at Terra. It was a fake US dollar, fake liquidity, fake everything. It was all out of thin air. It wasn’t real.
vixcontango: There is no market for CosmWasm on the Hub. Absurd statement. Smart contract L1s have an exceptionally strong product-market fit. The real challenge lies in building a vibrant ecosystem of developers and liquidity around the token, especially in a highly competitive L1 environment. However, the Cosmos Hub has no shortage of potential developers, and ATOM is highly liquid—Cosmos Hub ranks among the top 5 chains in terms of developers and liquidity! Let’s not overlook the fact that app developers have been practically begging for CosmWasm on the Hub (prop #69 ). Don’t be blinded by dogma. vixcontango: There is already permissionless CosmWasm on Neutron and Neutron is secured by the Hub so from a technical standpoint Neutron isn’t Cosmos Hub, just as Ethereum L2s aren’t Ethereum. You don’t have CosmWasm on the Hub on a technical or social level. ICS and Neutron are great, but they don’t benefit ATOM directly in the same way that a thriving ecosystem of apps built ON the Cosmos Hub would. vixcontango: The problem is nobody is using Neutron Neutron is its own chain with interesting tech, but building an ecosystem takes…
Excerpt (1196 of 1961 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Who exactly are the developers that will absolutely not use Neutron and only use the Cosmos Hub? And whoever they are, they are retarded. All of the things you are saying can be done today on Neutron. Neutron is not an L2, it is an L1 and it secured by Cosmos Hub validators. There is no practical difference between deploying and running a web assembly on Neutron or the Cosmos Hub itself. It is code that runs and is secured by Cosmos Hub validators. Moreover Neutron can make changes that enhance its ability as CosmWasm execution environment while Cosmos Hub can make changes that make it better ICS engine. These are very difficult engineering tasks and it is not good to be combining them. It is good to split things in modules where the code runs separate. In this case, you have modularization by creating app-specific chains. CosmWasm chain is Neutron. Running CosmWasm is Neutron’s app. It seems to me you don’t quite understand the app-chain thesis of Cosmos and keep falling into Ethereum style thinking (one global computer to rule them all). There is nothing wrong with that, but just like mainframe computers gave away to PCs and networks, monolithic blockchains will not be…
Excerpt (1195 of 3038 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I believe TFM (Luna affiliate, if i’m not mistaken) aquired MapofZones a while back. Could easily be wrong though.
Under new management, can it not be that there’s possible conflicting interest in advertising Cosmos Hub Atom vs. putting other products more or less aligned with their motives on their aquired “top shelf?”
Either way, yes, it’s great to see IBC doing well regardless, despite most of us collectively here rooting for the success of Atom.
I don’t think that’s the case. It’s just that IBC is growing far beyond ATOM. Newcomers like Noble (USDC), DYDX, Celestia, Sei are all generating more IBC traffic than ATOM. Something like Noble (USDC) is becoming far more central than ATOM because USDC is already widely used as money. Which means each chain will create its own bridge to Noble and then Noble ends up acting as the Hub for transactions instead of ATOM. The same could be said for Celestia (TIA) as “modular money”. The concept of “money” is all about what token merchants accept and customers can deliver easily. US dollars are the de facto global money right now so a US dollar based hub would surpass ATOM almost immediately and that is what we see. Other tokens that acquire medium-of-exchange qualities faster would also eclipse Cosmos Hub as IBC hubs. Ironically, I think as ICS and PSS become used more we’ll actually see even more chains jump ahead of ATOM as they acquire more trust through Cosmos Hub’s validators (lNeutron and Stride are good examples). Turns out the Hub-and-Spoke business model where ATOM is the prime transactions hub of the interchain is just not gonna transpire in reality in the interchain…
Excerpt (1194 of 1544 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hi, @Vixcontango.
Agreed regarding the need to revert/revise ATOM’s inflation. Without trying to deviate from the initial post of this thread, in respect to @MAGA, thankful to see IBC’s adoption grow, including the adoption of Noble.
Hopefully, down the road, they can adopt ICS2b to not only become its own sovereign/centralized hub, alongside acquiring trust through the Hub’s VaaS, but contribute back to ATOM through fees (since we’re collectively here to see ATOM succeed, long term. At least, I hope). Atom should not be viewed as money, anyway! ツ
USDC may be widely used, and I wish Noble all their success, but most users will come to see central bank digital currencies are simply a rebrand of the existing system most of us, if not all, are trying to imminently decouple from. For those in favor/could care less RE centralization, “more power to ya,” I guess.
Look, I used to think the same. I believed the Hub should focus on its strengths, with Neutron handling smart contracts. I figured trying to make the Hub a generic L1 would lose out to Ethereum and Solana. But it turns out, I was probably wrong. Neutron hasn’t gained much traction, but the Cosmos Hub likely would. As I mentioned, the incentives just don’t align for developers excited about ATOM to build on Neutron. I fully agree that the Hub’s biggest strength is attracting devs and users who believe in the appchain thesis. But there’s a path dependency; we likely need to get a few things right at the L1 level before fully committing to ICS. If we “Solana-fy” the Hub and make it appealing, ATOM’s price likely doubles the next day, we’d attract fresh devs, and have a shot at reviving ATOM. The thing is, Solana won. We ran the experiment in production, and users and investors made their preference clear. This argument of “we can’t do that because they already did” is like being in a struggling nation sticking with communism while watching America’s GDP soar and saying, “We can’t ‘Americanise’ because they’ve already done that.” The novelty doesn’t matter—what works, works.…
Excerpt (1195 of 1495 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Yeah, the 5 people that are censored by USDC can certainly go through ATOM instead, but if you want ATOM’s price to go up a lot, that’s not big enough of a market for that. The ATOM price we are talking about now is the one in US dollars since that is the standard. ATOM is getting pummeled in US dollars because US dollar inflation is far lower than ATOM’s. And not to mention, ATOM’s price is at absolute rock bottom vs BTC. BTC is $60K today. it was $3K in 2019 when ATOM was listed on Coinbase for around $5. In 5-6 years, ATOM’s price remains roughly the same while BTC 20xed.
Both Neutron and Stride are higher on the IBC transaction list than Cosmos. Yes, if ATOM had the IBC transactions of Neutron and Stride, it probably trade 2x higher (around $10), but again these aren’t Solana like gains. Solana is running a shitcoin casino very well and there is a lot of speculative capital in it betting that it will be the 3rd coin to be institutionalized (ie get futures product and ETF) after BTC and ETH. At some point these guys will dump and for the most part after that you have head-to-head competition between ETH and SOL for the big bucks in which SOL is favored because it is faster but ETH is more reliable. I don’t see any other monolithic chain being able to dislodge these “first mover” advantages. The unique benefit of Cosmos tech is being able to create custom validators that make certain things better. That is why big apps like DYDX and AKT abandon ETH, its L2s and don’t pick Solana - because they can’t customize what validators do. Using Cosmos SDK they can do that. But ultimately to benefit from those apps you have to invest in the apps themselves - ATOM can’t benefit from that. These apps can’t use the Cosmos Hub validators in a ICS scenario.…
Excerpt (1193 of 3090 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
vixcontango: The unique benefit of Cosmos tech is being able to create custom validators that make certain things better Agree. It just doesn’t benefit ATOM at all. vixcontango: Many people have proposed before to make IBC transactions payable in ATOM by default ATOM as an “IBC token” is a bad idea, won’t work. Agree with you there. vixcontango: There is a ton of L1 infra out there now (Polkadot, Cardano, Algorand, Near, Aptos, Sui, Binance, Avalanche, Dfinity, Sei) and a lot of it is sitting unused. Right - that’s my point. There are hardly any crypto communities with organic traction - it’s really just Ethereum, Solana, and Cosmos. Let me put it a different way: the downside of my proposed changes is low, and the potential upside is high. The downside is low because CosmWasm isn’t that risky, and it doesn’t really matter if the Hub occasionally halts, Solana and Ethereum both had bugs in the early days. Lower block times marginally increase hardware requirements, but it’s a small fixed cost (the hardware requirements of ICS are way higher than faster block times). Lowering ATOM’s APY is not risky; in practice most stake won’t…
Excerpt (1197 of 1647 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
The effective business and technical leads for Cosmos Hub are @Youssef and @jtremback.
Please comment.
2024-08-22_074940 869×404 55.8 KB The reason these 3 chains are the only ones getting traction and have large communities is because they consciously optimize for a different part of the blockchain trilemma. Ethereum optimizes for security and decentralization at the expense of speed. Solana optimizes for speed and decentralization at the expense of security. Cosmos optimizes for security and scalability at the expense for decentralization. As such the users of these chains are vastly different and they are not likely to switch from one technology to another. Cosmos is never going to get the Ethereum or Solana users because they prioritize different things. Ethereum has $100 billion in TVL because ETH is both decentralized and secure - in other words if shit hits the fan, a hedge fund guy can get out of his position even if he has to pay $1000 for a transaction fee. Solana despite being a fast chain to this day can’t get big TVL (its TVL is a little less than $10 billion) because a hedge fund can’t be sure that it can get out of its position. If the chain halts and the positions go against the fund and the funds are investing in 100% vol financial instruments here (ie you can…
Excerpt (1198 of 6944 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
vixcontango:Si ATOM doit faire ICS, il ne peut pas se permettre des arrêts de chaîne car potentiellement des centaines d’autres chaînes en dépendront.
Cosmos hub a deja subit un arret tandis que neutron et stride continuaient à produire des blocs, il me semble que le hub peut s’arreter plusieurs heures sans aucune repercution sur les consumer.
A confirmer
vixcontango:I personally went overweight ATOM a couple of years ago because I really like the shared security product that Ethan outlined and now with PSS and Babylon this vision will come to fruition in its entirety this year.
How’s that been going?
This discussion seems like a waste of time, as your view of what the Cosmos Hub should be is stuck back in 2019, and you don’t seem open to changing your perspective. The reality is that the Cosmos Hub needs to take drastic action, or it’ll be irrelevant by next year.
My proposal is low-risk, high-upside, and actionable. It’s a plan that would make me want to hold the ATOM token. I don’t, today.
I think I was pretty clear that the problem with the ATOM price is the high inflationary schedule, not the token’s utility. If there is anything that needs further fixing, it’s the inflation. And potentially buying out Neutron and Stride to add the utility you want.
The Cosmos Hub is not stuck back in 2019. In 2019, it didn’t have ICS, nor did it run Neutron on top of it. ATOM had far less utility in 2019 than today.
In any case, nobody is stopping you from entering a proposal on chain. Enter it and see how it goes. In 2022, there was a proposal #69 to include CosmWasm and it got rejected with 63% NO vote. If you run this proposal today (2 years later, not 5 years later), it will be rejected by even higher percentages especially after the chain halt a couple of months ago.
OK
I’ve shared my view of the problem, as well as a proposed solution
Good luck
vixcontango:I think I was pretty clear that the problem with the ATOM price is the high inflationary schedule, not the token’s utility. If there is anything that needs further fixing, it’s the inflation. And potentially buying out Neutron and Stride to add the utility you want.
What exactly creates a direct value for the atom token? Just asking for a friend…
As far as i remember, some inflation adjustments could have led to split the chain a few month ago… i really don’t think its those 10% that could be blamed for ongoing selloffs.
Also some twitter people start accusing Akash and Injective for extracting value out of cosmos, looks like they are jealous about their growth in utility and price compared to atom…
Maybe its time to overhaul some central dogma of the atom chain purpose
The original vision for ATOM’s long-term utility was as a central IBC hub. Instead of chains creating connections between each other directly, they would create connection through the Cosmos Hub and connect that way with 2 hops. So instead of having N squared pathways, you would have N pathways only and they would all go through ATOM. For the first 3-4 years that was the case, but then came Terra, Osmosis and more recently Celestia and Noble. Since they were all having more activity on them, the various chains started using them as central pathway. Now ATOM is like 7th or 8th IBC hub and going down the ranking and as such not benefiting from the growth of IBC. Now ATOM’s utility is the shared security offering (ICS), which hasn’t been completed yet. It’s speculative to what extent it will generate value for ATOM - the vision for that is that ATOM would get 20-25% cut of the chains that run on top of it (small cut of a big pie), but the big problem here with that vision is that big apps like OSMO, DYDX and AKT want to customize the functionality of the validators whereas in ICS you get the cookie cutter ATOM validators. In other words, the big apps (the big pie) will not run on…
Excerpt (1197 of 2325 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Is it unfeasible for non-ICS chains (AKT, DYDX, OSMO, …) to support Cosmos by paying a fee or do regular buy-back?
The more I read, the more it seems certain projects extract a lot of value without giving back anything
It’s unfeasible because you can’t enforce that. The software has long been free and open source.
If IBC fees were paid in ATOM, then growth of IBC chains would have accrued value to ATOM. But as it stands right now, that is not the case. And I am not sure it can be done, because the code is FOSS (open source).They can copy the code and override the fee setting.
Hi @vixcontango and @tknox35
There have been cases when a software previously open source licensed (there are different OSS licenses) changed its license model. One example is Terraform ( HashiCorp | The Infrastructure Cloud Company ) and an article What the Terraform License Change Means for DevOps
We strongly believe in the value of openly sharing source code and enabling practitioners to solve their problems, building communities, and creating transparency. HashiCorp provides feature-rich products to the community for free, and that development is made possible by our commercial customers who partner with us. By shifting to this license, HashiCorp can better manage commercial uses of our source code and continue to invest in our thriving community of practitioners, many of whom are contributors, in a manner that will not impede their work.
It is my perspective and I may be wrong. Other chains can copy, change the code and break the license. It is strange for chains such as DYDX, etc. to not give something back.
I do think chains like DYDX and AKT give back in sponsoring some interchain development. But their community pools and treasuries can’t just buy ATOM if ATOM has huge inflation and may not be a good place to invest - just from fiduciary perspective. I didn’t mention in the above paragraphs that ATOM’s annual volatility is around 100% and that also increases the expected return quite a bit. The real numbers are ATOM needs to beat 40% in annual return to be a good investment given its volatility profile vs the cost of money now. So ANYONE that has any background in asset management and finance will have huge concerns before plunking in big dollars. ATOM’s biggest problem is that it doesn’t appeal to institutional investors as an investment asset - and if you ask Jae Kwon - that is by design. He doesn’t want ATOM to be owned by the “Wall Street cartel”, but by his friends. To be honest with you, I have no idea why ATOM was ever listed on crypto exchanges. It never should have been listed - Jae should have made this token a private placement and generally prohibited secondary listings on established exchanges in order not to embroil outsiders in his scheme. As it stands right now,…
Excerpt (1197 of 2842 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Personnellement je pense que ce peut etre simple.
ecrivons que le cosmos hub prenne en charge toutes les demandes de financement y compris celles des autres chaines cosmos contre, en retour, un fee (minime) sur les teansaction IBC de ces chaines. Dans ce cas, aucun couteau sous la gorge des autres chaines, gagnant gagnant pour tous. Alors le cosmos hub redevient le centre de la gouvernance et de financement de la pile cosmos plus large, Atom devient utile grace a la taxe IBC, l’inflation peut donc etre reduite.
Et donnons la possibilité aux chaines pss d’etre financées gratuitement en contre parti de leur adhesion a l’AEZ.
Qu’en dites vous ? 
Govmos:According to this mechanic, we would currently experience the “spring,” which is the culminating point of bearish sentiment, corresponding to the bottom of the structure. If we are correct, this is where the last transfer of value will happen before the structure reaches final completion as volume raises back up along with prices. This is the point of “maximum pain” inflicted on weak hands, so we are not surprised to see posts like yours mentioning the impending death of ATOM. We see quite the opposite.
At what price does this TA idea become invalidated ? Price is down a further 17% in 20 days.
Is there a price at which you admit you are wrong and that radical action is needed to adjust ATOM to what the market wants ? Thank you.
Great friggin reply.
Hello, I don’t really agree with you but I like the initiative and the intention First of all, lowering inflation by comparing the cosmos hub to Ethereum is a mistake in my opinion, Ethereum is much better established in the crypto universe, there is no doubt that it has a future, so it is not a problem for hodlers to stake it with a low yield In addition, Ethereum’s staking ratio is barely 25%, the Cosmos Hub cannot accept to have such a low ratio Concerning permissionless smart contracts, this is also a misunderstanding of what the Cosmos Hub is The Cosmos Hub offers security and gets paid for it, we don’t want smart contracts on the Hub, we want blockchains secured by the Hub The product of the HUB is its security In my opinion, if Osmosis has not succeeded in creating a token allowing it to both secure its blockchain AND be the token of its DEX is that the Atom ICS is market fit and that we are only beginning to realize it Atom will ensure the security of osmosis and the Osmo token can be optimized for its DEX The cosmos hub therefore wants blockchains and not Smart contracts This means that tools are needed to simplify as much as possible the development and…
Excerpt (1195 of 2045 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I think we need to implement an ATOM token burn mechanic that leverages either participation in DeFi or the consumer chain model. Right now the only reason to get more ATOM is so that you can sell more ATOM. We need a reason to use ATOM or Cosmos Hub services that will reduce ATOM supply. That would be far better than just lowering inflation.
My Proposal- personally, I think most typical retail investors don’t understand the consumer chain model and why it’s bullish for ATOM. I think using consumer chain fees to buy and burn ATOM would be extremely bullish for ATOM price and discussion of the proposal would bring a LOT more attention to the consumer chain model, something desperately needed. I also don’t think consumer chain fees will make ATOM deflationary, but the closer we get the more bullish and hyped everyone will be to hold ATOM.
To add to this, I would add a simple web page that always shows the amount of ATOM bought and burned with consumer chain fees. With just that by itself- every time we get a new consumer chain proposal people would actually care and talk about it.
To me it’s seems a good idea
From one side inflation pay for validation/ delegation the other fees to burn Atom
And perhaps like it was proposed a few times ago keep Atom inflation at a constant rate
(1) 10x too much ATOM is staked. The point is to lower the staking rate and incentivize ATOMs to chase yield. We want less ATOM staked, not more. ATOMs economic security is needlessly high. But even if you want to keep economic security the same, you could cut the staking rate in half and double the slashing rate. Also, it doesn’t matter if ATOM is secure, if it’s irrelevant.
(2) ATOM needs to change. As I said above, I used to think ATOM should be minimal and sell security. But we have to be open to changing our minds based on new information. ICS isn’t working for ATOM. The message from the market has been clear over the past 5 years; the formula for blockchain success is powerful blockchain+vibrant community.
Victor118:I don’t think Atom is dead, I think it’s a sleeping giant starting to wake up
You have to make this measurable or it’s an empty claim, what is your thesis?
One of the inflation theories a couple of years ago was that min_inflation would be set to 0%, then as many chains launched on top of ICS, the fees would get distributed to stakers and then people would stake their ATOM past the 67% threshold for lowering inflation and be happy with the yield since ATOM investors are income investors, not growth investors. ATOM inflation would also go to zero and we would have a situation where ATOM price is not getting eroded by inflation while people get income from other sources (economic activity from consumer chains). But a proposal by @effort_capital (or his circle) to lower min_inflation to 0% was rejected early on this year so this 0-10% tokenomics design clearly wasn’t going to be a reality. Now we are about 2 years after these discussions, what does the real world look like. ICS got 2 consumer chains and the validators of both are complaining that they are subsidizing them. IE not enough economic activity on them to pay the validators much less the stakers. Now we have PSS and it looks like we might get (at best) 20 chains using 20 validators (or 400 chain validators) which is roughly the equivalent of 2 full ICS chains (2 * 180…
Excerpt (1192 of 3544 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I agree that 67% is too high. I think 50% is good enough of a threshold and 60% if you want to be super secure. 67% is really a theoretical high security threshold. Chains are pretty secure even with 30% staked. I don’t know of proof-of-stake chain with 30% staked to have been exploited.
Generally speaking, the only things to do here is for ATOM to make it look like Ethereum or Solana to capture 100% of the economics of smart contract ICS chains like Neutron. If Neutron is rust/web assembly, at some point there needs to be an EVM ICS chain (which is 90% of the smart contract market, EVMOS or its successor) and a MOVE ICS chain. All those should make their transactions payable in ATOM and they need to 100% revenue share with the Cosmos Hub.
Outside of that, I think the best bang for the buck without additional work here is fixing the inflation. At present the high 10% inflation gives a lot of income to Coinbase and the other big exchange validators, Jae Kwon and the Interchain Foundation. They are making this money at the expense of all the people who have bought ATOM over the past 2-3 years.
In this situation, ATOM’s governance capability are a hook with which people lose money - they keep thinking - “with governance things can change and can turnaround” and keep staying in the game while the big boyz are dumping like champs. Even at $1 ATOM, all these big boyz are making millions annually.
MAGA:(1) 10x too much ATOM is staked. The point is to lower the staking rate and incentivize ATOMs to chase yield. We want less ATOM staked, not more. ATOMs economic security is needlessly high. But even if you want to keep economic security the same, you could cut the staking rate in half and double the slashing rate. Also, it doesn’t matter if ATOM is secure, if it’s irrelevant.
I’m not agree, cosmos hub product is ICS if we want a good product cosmos hub need a high staking rate
PSS is not live yet, why do you want to kill it now ?
Osmosis , and perhaps noble will become PSS consumer chains, my thesis that it’s a good signal for market
The Wyckoff accumulation pattern, as outlined in Mr. Wyckoff’s original work, does not correspond to a specific price tag, but rather involves a flat range structure with various chart techniques. The goal is to influence investors’ decisions. The critical requirements are those mentioned in the initial post, and ATOM meets these criteria. The Wyckoff accumulation pattern signifies a transfer of ownership. The pattern concludes when extreme sell pressure and psychological distress are reached, essentially building a long term bottom beyond which the recovery will be strong and durable. The “Spring” phase is marked by a break in the pattern’s bottom range, approximately $5.6 for ATOM. If correctly executed, the Spring phase ends when market volumes return, and prices are predicted to rise again. This phase drains the remaining weak supply into stronger hands, setting the stage for a market reversal and renewed demand, which, due to limited supply, will cause prices to reverse. The Spring phase completion is confirmed by a bullish candle close recovering the support level of $5.6, followed by a retest to verify the end of phase C, in line with Wyckoff methodology. The…
Excerpt (1188 of 1836 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗