[PROPOSAL][DRAFT] Merge (FULL or PARTIAL) Cosmos Hub and Osmosis Networks

This thread is meant solicit high-level ideas for a possible merger, fully or partially, increased collaboration, and to escalate any major barriers or concerns with merging chains, resources, etc. All options are on the table! This is a pre-signalling draft proposal to gauge interest and feedback on possible increased collaborations between $ATOM and $OSMO. A mirrored proposal should go up by an Osmosis member on the Osmosis forum to develop more impactful discussions. 1. Executive Summary This proposal outlines the possible benefits and strategy for merging Cosmos Hub and Osmosis, fully or partially, into a unified blockchain ecosystem under $ATOM. The goal of this potential merger would be to leverage synergies and create a more robust and scalable infrastructure that serves both ecosystems, their respective communities and the interchain as a whole more effectively. 2. Introduction Cosmos Hub and Osmosis are two prominent projects within the Cosmos ecosystem. Cosmos Hub, as the original chain of the Cosmos Network, provides security and liquidity for the Cosmos Ecosystem, most recently through the release of Interchain Security (v2). Osmosis, on the other hand, is…

Excerpt (1199 of 5309 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you Paul for taking the initiative to the forum.

I am a huge proponent of this movement. In my role as retail, community member of both projects and governance participant in the wider IBC ecosystem.

For me personally, I believe the two OG cosmos communities can ignite a new cosmos hype in crypto.

The best Dex, the best launchpad, rich liquidity, most amazing tech and product talent. All this in one place.

We can make this fundamental change real. Let us choose greatness first and solve the details in a next step.

Thor might be coming, but we have it in our own hands to stride towards a bright future.

ONE TRUE HUB

Work in progress: Into for proposal In an effort to enhance interoperability, streamline operations, and solidify the Cosmos ecosystem, we propose a strategic merger between Osmosis and the Cosmos Hub. This merger will be executed through a phased approach, focusing on the convergence of tokens, chain mechanics, core development, and the broader ecosystem. The goal is to leverage the strengths of both chains and create a unified platform that maximizes efficiency, security, and liquidity provision while supporting innovation within the Interchain ecosystem. • Why do it? The merger between Osmosis and Cosmos Hub represents a significant step forward in unifying the broader Cosmos ecosystem. By combining resources, development teams, and liquidity provisioning capabilities, we will create a more robust and efficient platform that drives long-term value for all stakeholders involved. Making the interchain dex Vision a reality and the economic might of ATOM is what will help accelerate Osmosis into this. The DEX needs liquidity for BTC, and we think doing stuff with ATOM pairing is how we can make that happen. Similar to how RUNE does the Savers. • How to set up the props?…

Excerpt (1199 of 2570 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you for raising this proposal. The idea of a merge is exciting but, respectfully, this proposal is a lot of words but doesn’t really say anything. Neither the Hub nor Osmosis should be expected to make a governance commitment until there’s an actual, concrete plan presented to them. If this merger effort is serious, then it should be unrushed, as there probably won’t be a second chance at this. From @agent.kwosh 's reply it looks like some actionable items are being proposed already. I’d propose that folks working on this continue to use this forum post to provide ongoing updates on implementation ideas where they can get feedback from the community (and the same can be done on Osmosis’s forums). As someone who has been involved in Osmosis’s community for a bit, i’d also suggest strongly considering the following: • Governance- This is probably the most important aspect of the merger, even moreso than any monetary premium. Hub governance is far too slow as it is currently to be the canonical way by which to govern Osmosis. I’ve always envisioned Hub gov as being kind of like the US 3 branches of government" system. The system is designed to be slow because it…

Excerpt (1194 of 3507 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I agree with the friction points you’ve touched on and would propose that instead of a governance and/or architecture merge, what users really want is a more seamless user experience across Cosmos Hub consumer chain applications and Osmosis, and additional use cases/value propositions that leverage both of these juggernauts. Both of those things can be done without upending how each conducts governance and day-to-day business, and for far less cost.

Some initial ideas are paying the same front-end developers to build out UIs and a seamless UX across the two Hubs, incentivizing liquidity pools on multiple DEXes including Osmosis, and in general tweaking some UX pathways to make it more natural to navigate between applications. I understand these things seem small and not particularly noteworthy on their own, so maybe we just bundle up a lot of these small proposals into one big one that triggers more enthusiasm and interest from retail investors.

Thanks, Robo. Have made some slight adjustments to the thread title and OP based off some of your suggestions, to ensure a sentiment of flexibility and openness to all forms of collaboration.

Unfortunately, this should be a straightforward “No” from the broader community.

Though an exciting idea, this proposal aims to establish an entirely new organization, rather than working to improve the existing one.

Instead of overcomplicating Cosmos Hub away from staying as minimal as possible, a counter, more flexible solution would be to utilize ICS2B down the road. A win/win scenario, for both ATOM and OSMO, where ICS2 protocols are entirely managed by the logic of the other chain, i.e. Osmosis (emphasis on win/win).

By combining the strengths of both platforms, we can collectively continue to unlock new potential for both sovereign communities, all the while delivering enhanced value back to our users and the broader blockchain community.

Looking forward to see how this discussion progresses.

I don’t believe that the OSMO validators would vote in favor of this, or even onboarding as a consumer chain. There is little reason to vote themselves out of relevance and profit.

Love the idea though and are 100% in favor of it.

What about keeping the Hub minimal? How would a merger affect transaction times and costs?

I am mainly and firstly interested what the point of view is regarding the sentiment towards the projects and the parties leading it. I don’t see much controversy around the Osmosis team, while the ICF receives a huge lot of backlash. Why would the Osmosis team even be willing to merge and get all the negativity with it, when they can also run without?

Thanks for taking the time to participate in governance and draft this proposal. Opinions are my own here (as I work for Stakecito that validates both Cosmos and Osmosis, and I’m also a protocol fee controller for Osmosis). A few questions come to mind for me. • Have you spoken with the Osmosis team to establish that this is something they would be keen on adding to their near term product roadmap? Osmosis is a sovereign chain with its own strategic goals and plans and so imo it’s not entirely fair to table a merger if there have not been preliminary discussions with them. • I was reading about an Osmosis Cosmos merger on Twitter all day and was so confused as there was no information on this on the Osmosis forums. This literally impacts Osmosis in its entirety and so buy-in imo should first be from Osmosis the team, and then Osmosis the community. Finding the proposal on the Cosmos Hub was just weird. • If there have been no discussions to determine team’s willingness to take this on, imo it’s way too early to make this a governance matter. • I agree with Robo that this is a proposal with a lot of words but it actually does not say much. It also feels very surface…

Excerpt (1199 of 1979 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you, Winfred. As you can see in my OP, I do mention that we should see a mirrored proposal on the osmosis forums to further more legitimate discussions. That being said, Sunny is engaged and has shown preliminary interest in a merger. You can see these conversations openly in the telegram chat linked in the OP that happened yesterday. I wanted to keep the momentum going so pushed out a rough wireframe, though am iterating constantly based on feedback.

Aaaah thanks I usually avoid clicking on links.
Would probably help a lot to screenshot that conversation and add it in the OP.

With that said, showing interest is different from “we’ve got the bandwidth and want to prioritize this in our roadmap”. I see where you’re coming from though, re: momentum.

I personally would like to see more analysis before I can form an opinion. I feel like this is exciting at face value, but it comes with so many implications and so far a lot of the Osmosis folks I know who’ve been around a long time are not very pro this idea in its current state

The main supporters are ATOM folks.

Added one screenshot as reference, though to get the full sentiment, would urge joining in the telegram discussion.

the main supporters of osmo are atom folks

Hmmm there’s def an intersection, but there’s also just osmo folks.
To be clear, I’m in that intersection.

The idea of a Cosmos and Osmosis merger has been circulating within the community, especially following the discussions around the Stride acquisition proposals. Given the complexity and sensitivity of such initiatives, as evidenced by the evolution of the Stride proposal, it’s crucial that we approach this potential merger with careful consideration, particularly focusing on the technical and strategic aspects. In my view, a full merger may not be the most effective approach due to the significant differences between the two projects. Cosmos and Osmosis operate under distinct foundations with different teams, cultures, and development philosophies. Osmosis has consistently demonstrated a fast-paced, innovation-driven approach, while Cosmos, despite its strengths, has faced its share of controversies and challenges. Given these differences, a partial acquisition or a focused strategic collaboration seems like the most viable solution. This would allow both ecosystems to maintain their unique strengths while benefiting from shared resources and closer integration where it makes the most sense. Merging the foundations entirely could hinder progress by creating friction and…

Excerpt (1192 of 1428 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi everyone!

Thank you @PaulEdward and guys at Osmosis TG.Love your brains.

I do have some questions though.
What would become after full merge? As those two are like night and day. Osmosis still working on a DEX would somehow become controversial. Wasn’t in 2021 Gravity DEX the DEX on Cosmos Hub and it has already shown then that ATOM inflation for farming is a potential threat to other DEXs within Cosmos eco. Maybe it could be done I am not saying it could not, but I really like what Osmosis is doing on its own. I am one of those crazy retailers that actually belives in tech😉

I also agree with @RoboMcGobo about governance potential merging problem. I think it would have to adapt towards Osmosis governance model that needs quicker solutions.

And finally the tokenomics after merge. How would this play out?

Although I somehow like the idea, at this time I am more in favour of them staying on their own or some partial merge that would benefit both. Imho we need more different projects to push eco forward. I somehow always hope to see our eco as Internet of blockchains where Hub is neutral towards other aplications but helps them on their way.

en ce qui concerne la gouvernance, mon opinion est que c’est un faux sujet. Nous arrivons bien a porter des mises a jour du hub sous 7 jours tandis que les certaines restent sur 14j. Nous pourrions tres bien convenir dun delais plus court en ce qui concerne le logiciel osmosis

I just want to say that I will never ever never ever ever ever ever never never never never never never never never accept a discounted price on my osmo for atom.

1.5x minimum, full liquidity demanded

Interesting.

I think the only possible solution is Osmo to join the HUB as an ICS chain. Osmo should keep the governance sovereignty.

i have the same opinion

Hey everyone. I am a long time staker and believer in Cosmos, who has become increasingly skeptic of Cosmos Hub. Bear with me as I try to deconstruct and understand some of the arguments in favor of the merge, hoping that you can bounce back some of my thoughts. As @agent.kwosh stated on Twitter, we need to evaluate the complementary strengths and weaknesses of each platform for a successful merge. Starting with the abstract goal of having a single Hub in Cosmos with a competent DEX. It seems to me that most people from both communities agree that this would be beneficial. Osmosis has strong products and integrations, as well as a competent team. On the other hand, Cosmos Hub has the liquidity and recognition outside of Cosmos that is much needed to attract on-chain activity. ATOM, despite its shortcomings, is perceived as the most trustworthy token in the ecosystem. Osmosis has set its goal in expanding beyond Cosmos, leveraging partnerships with Nomic, Axelar and Noble to strengthen its BTC, ETH and USDC liquidity and become truly interchain. This expansion, intentionally or not, accounted for the loss in strength of ATOM that we’ve come to experience. The inflows are now…

Excerpt (1196 of 6079 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Generally speaking, everything happening in the Cosmos ecosystem so far is the opposite of the strategy that should be pursued. There are great benefits to accumulating and unifying liquidity - why do you think TD Ameritrade buys out Scottrade and then Schwab buys out TD Ameritrade? To combine the liquidity of all those companies. When you combine liquidity, a trading company can lower the trading spreads. Thus the combination of TD Ameritrade + Scottrade + Schwab is bigger than all 3 companies combined. In other words, 1+1+1 = 5, because at a lower trading spreads, the combined entity can gain additional customers. In Cosmos exactly the opposite is happening. Liquidity is being infinitely fragmented, the trading spreads explode and the separated entities are far smaller than if they were combined. First Osmosis split off (and I understand the reasons, to build a good DEX faster than the Gravity DEX team) but adding an OSMO token fragmented liquidity - now people had to invest in both ATOM and OSMO with lower market cap expectations for each. Then you had Neutron show up with Atroport. Now you have NTRN and ASTR token to invest in with ASTR directly competing vs OSMO. If a…

Excerpt (1193 of 4154 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I do not know why others hate the Merge between Osmosis and Cosmos Hub but I think they do not see the bigger picture. To me, this is like an upgrade of Cosmos, both chains evolving.

Osmosis would evolve into Osmosis - “The Cosmos Hub” and Cosmos Hub would evolve into “Cosmos Network”. $Osmo is a much weaker token than $Atom and in my opinion this Merge would be very beneficial long term for both Osmosis and Cosmos Hub, strengthening both chains under one token. I don`t know why $Atom gets so much hate, but if necessary then it can be rebranded to $Cosmos.

Osmosis, becoming “The Cosmos Hub” would be the best DEX for Cosmos and other Defi activities, using $Atom or $Cosmos as token for liquidity and gas, while “Cosmos Network” would be in charge of security, Cosmos SDK and IBC. I would also suggest IBC to be used with $Atom or $Cosmos as token for gas fee.

You should also consider that competition is really high nowadays, with so many ecosystems taking over and Cosmos Hub looks like it`s falling behind even though it has the potential to compete with Solana, Ethereum and others.

Lets make Cosmos great again!

I see a lot of Cosmos hub cheerleaders in the beginning of this discussion. Lets take a step back before discussing all ways to get a merger done and see the bigger picture. Cosmos hub is partnering with Elys Network DEX in the near future. Whats up with that and at the same time start talking about a “merger” with Osmosis??? “Lets merge with Osmosis and at the same time set up a new DEX that does exactly the same thing as Osmosis already does but is completely under our control!” I very much question the motivation behind a “merger” prop. Osmosis is going in a totally different direction then Atom with a very good dev team, expanding outside cosmos to be a dex including BTC etc, towards 0% inflation and completely revenue driven operating modus with a fixed max supply that will probably be reduced by 30%. Now this prop wants Osmo to merge with inflation driven Atom, with incompetent government, hugely misused comm pool and with unlimited supply. Cosmos prop #952 is at this moment under voting. This “merger” discussion/prop is a distraction. If disfunctional Cosmos hub gov cant even get the 2017-2023 financial reports published, talking about a “merger” with actually…

Excerpt (1192 of 1696 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

^ the post above mine has better arguments e.g. we are still waiting for 2017-2023 financial reports

This proposed merger between Cosmos Hub and Osmosis?

It’s a total disaster. Believe me, it’s not the right move, not now, not ever.

I want to know what’s really going on behind the scenes. Who’s pulling the strings at Cosmos? Who’s making these decisions? I demand transparency. We need to know who’s running the show and what their motivations are.

As the saying goes:

“Follow the money … and your ass will follow”

• Funkadelic

I’m a fair guy. I’m willing to listen to proposals, but they’ve got to be good, they’ve got to be strong, and they’ve got to benefit everyone involved. So here’s my counteroffer: if we’re going to even consider this merger, I want to see a minimum of 2x OSMO for each ATOM swapped. Anything less is a joke. We need to make a deal that’s so good, so strong, so powerful, that everyone comes out on top. Anything less is unacceptable.

We need a better deal, and we need it now. If not, then this merger is dead in the water. And trust me, folks, I know how to walk away from a bad deal. I’ve done it before, and I’ll do it again if necessary.

This was initiated by the community. People who hold both atom and osmo such as Wickex, agent kwosh, myself, and others. We want to realize a greater cosmos vision to help go up against eth and sol. Maybe you should ask yourself who doesn’t want that? What you are seeing is raw initiative, and you can track how it’s evolved over the last few days on X and telegram.

As you can see in the disclosure under my previous post, I hold both Atom and Osmo. I fully support a greater cosmos vision to help go up against Eth and Sol.

Thinking to accomplish that with a Cosmos hub Osmosis “merger” is a wrong line of thinking. Cosmos hub cleaning up its mess is the only way for Cosmos to compete with Eth and Sol. Any “merger” talk without first cleaning up is distraction and hurting Cosmos.

Maybe you should ask yourself what is the reason behind this sudden emerging of “merger” talks. It is not like this has never been discussed before.

I care about the health, sustainability and growth of Cosmos ecosystem. I have my doubts that ppl talking now about a “merger” and enthoustasticly tunnel vision planning out the details to make that happen also do…

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Talk about a Cosmos hub Osmosis “merger” is not in the best interest of Cosmos ecosystem…
Especially not in light of the upcomming partnering of Cosmos hub with the new Elys Network DEX.

Cosmos can not go up against Eth and Sol because there are too many individual chains who basically do not care about Cosmos Hub and Atom. The focus should be on Atom and Cosmos Hub if you want to go up against Eth and Sol. So far, Osmosis was the only DEX in Cosmos. Is time to bring more DEXs for Cosmos and create competition between each other. Competition is always good. Do not get me wrong, I love Osmosis, is my favourite DEX that I have ever used.

We have taken the time to thoroughly assess this complex matter, allowing a few days to gather various community feedback and carefully separate the political motives from the rational arguments. In this post, we will share our review, provide context, and include links for those who wish to delve deeper into the implications of these movements, both in the short and medium to long term. Short-term Strategy: Currently, we are in the initial phase where discussions are active and opinions are being shared. A few contributors have distinguished themselves by providing valuable information and concrete propositions. At Govmos, we believe it is crucial to focus on the how —to craft well-considered proposals and allow the community to vote . While opponents may be vocal, their lack of substantial contributions often reveals underlying political motivations. We stand firm in our belief that the community should have the final say. To achieve a well-informed decision, we must first gather viable proposals, merge them to reach a consensus among active participants, and then proceed to votings. Drawing lessons from the ATOM 2.0 experience, we advocate for an iterative approach,…

Excerpt (1193 of 7022 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Govmos: At Govmos, we believe it is crucial to focus on the how —to craft well-considered proposals and allow the community to vote . That is the point, isnt it? Before any focus on how, the first MAIN question that needs to be answered is: Is it healthy and beneficial for Cosmos ecosystem, as well as Cosmos hub and as well Osmosis to have a merger. The answer for me to that question as I have argued with reasonings in my posts is a resounding: NO Ofc the community has the final say with vote, who is arguing that it is not? Very suggestive… Forcing through a vote without addressing the MAIN issues…hmmm, do you really want a vote that is informed about WHY and not only HOW??? I actually doubt that. Look at your own post and the OP… From the start tunnel vision to only and exclusively HOW completely supresses any discussion on the MAIN question that needs to be answered first. Govmos: While opponents may be vocal, their lack of substantial contributions often reveals underlying political motivations. This again supresses any discussion on the MAIN question. As you can verify: my previous posts have been about 1/5 of your post. Indeed, while you are…

Excerpt (1197 of 3756 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I have nothing against more competition, in fact there are several dex s already in Cosmos. Competition is good indeed. I only question the Cosmos hub role and motivation in putting up a “merge” prop with Osmosis while at the same time setting up Elys Network Dex…

We would like to address some key misunderstandings in your reasoning. First and foremost, it’s crucial to distinguish between contributing constructively to the community by developing proposals and simply pushing an agenda. Our primary focus is on how to present something meaningful to the community, ultimately allowing them to vote on it. This is where you, along with other opponents, can rally your support and vote against it if you so choose. The essence of our approach is not about passing proposals by any means necessary. If the community votes against a proposal, we will accept that outcome and move on. Our commitment to generating ideas and content is driven by the goal of facilitating community decision-making, not by political motivations. Unfortunately, your stance appears to be more about opposing the creation of content rather than engaging in the democratic process. It’s important to recognize that attempting to prevent people from working on ideas or proposals is fundamentally counterproductive. You seem to suggest that we shouldn’t even explore the possibility of a merge, but the reality is that you can’t—and won’t—stop people from pursuing initiatives you…

Excerpt (1198 of 1507 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Govmos: your stance appears to be more about opposing the creation of content rather than engaging in the democratic process I am adding to the creation of content by asking the reasons why and by doing so am engeging fully in the democratic proces… very harmfull framing here supressing democratic discussion…very unfortunate. On another topic It’s important to recognize that attempting to prevent people from working on ideas or proposals is fundamentally counterproductive. You seem to suggest that we shouldn’t even explore the possibility of a merge, but the reality is that you can’t—and won’t—stop people from pursuing initiatives you disagree with. I in NO WAY attempt to prevent or suggest that we shouldnt even work on ideas, or proposals also merger ideas. This is very harmfull framing that you do here… Very disappointed in that… I argue that we first have to address the MAIN issue: What are the reasons behind this prop and is it beneficial for also Cosmos ecosystem and Osmosis. I am very sure as I explained that the HOW it can be done is fairly easily agreed upon. Now again you completely suppress the discussion about the MAIN issue that is the…

Excerpt (1197 of 3072 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

TLDR:

Distract Cosmonauts from more urgent, pressing issues at hand, such as:

1. Prop#952 (A Call to Action: ICF Leadership)
2. #955 (Hydro deployment)

and push forward neatly framed manipulation tactics to advance 2.0 insider committees for further dominance. Again, at face-value, this merge idea is exciting, but there are more urgent matters.

Though I always appreciate reading @Govmos’ thorough, and logical break downs, your response(s) equally seem to have an underlying agenda, despite masterfully utilizing neutral tones in speech.

I would also like to say that I will not sell my atom and osmo… after all, let’s remember the past years and their development, for the words that were said, even in conversations where we were told to stick to the path, when chaos may arise later. Atom must not die is the real money for fulfillment, securing trading and exchange for buying cosmos coins to further expand and use in the ecosystem. Osmo dex/token has originality, character and the atom in this proposal should still stand and supply this complex, you know I trust you and you, the guy has it and started the Internet network, he has a long-term idea, do you know how I know it? I didn’t meet him, but my consciousness saw him when he was in Switzerland, he and his idea remained with me until now and I will support him even if it became real many years later, I will continue to write something about the proposal in a separate comment… …

For your information, I am also deeply against the death of the Hub.

And I wrote a little tweet on it earlier today.

Jacob Gadikian 🦄x⚗️ (@gadikian) on X

Just out of curiosity, why would a fixed issuance token like OSMO want to merge with unlimited issuance token like ATOM. Why would OSMO tokenholders want to become ATOM tokenholders when it is clear that the design of the ATOM tokenomics (original design was inflation between 7% and 20%) is for its price to go to slowly to zero?

As some of the previous comments pointed out, ATOM’s tokenomics would have to be fixed.

Someone should come up with something very similar to what @JohnnyWyles did few weeks ago on the Osmosis forum. It was a very complete and pratical way to present a tokenomics reform that can be understand by all.

First, showing in a very effective way how the current inflation and revenue actually look like with this kind of tools :

Capture d’écran 2024-09-07 à 10.26.261216×912 126 KB

Then propose different scenarios with their own diagram so everybody can understand and VIZUALIZED changes :

Capture d’écran 2024-09-07 à 10.28.111560×1506 385 KB

Then, summarized all scenarios in a tab and let the community share their thoughts :

Capture d’écran 2024-09-07 à 10.29.341546×1482 289 KB

I’m not very technical but Johnny’s post give a very nice picture of how it is now, and how it would looks like with different scenarios. We didn’t have any of this during the precedent discussion on inflation here, it was mostly philosophical posts without any data and tangible projections. Also, like Govmos said we should stop tricking individual parameters…

It sounds to me like there are steps we can take with on-chain governance that could eventually lead to the merge of Cosmos Hub and Osmosis. Similar to the ATOM 2.0 proposal, the community is going to want to see this done with multiple separate proposals, not just one. So maybe the very first proposal is an overhaul of ATOM tokenomics. Then I think each proposal should just cite the eventual goal of soliciting larger projects to integrate with or become Cosmos Hub consumer chains.

Should we start with this tokenomics overhaul proposal then? It sounds like a mix of what Osmosis has done along with an ATOM burn mechanic tied to DeFi participation or the consumer chain model would be well-received.

Your questions about tokenomics and potential order of events might best be asked of @RoboMcGobo @RobbStack @jtremback @effortcapital.

I’m not sure whether tokenomics get improved first, or if @Govmos feedback on order of events makes more sense. I think showing how a merger would truly benefit both communities and getting a signaling proposal passed first probably makes the most sense. Then a second signaling proposal of the steps involved, with tokenomics being one of them. Then when the ATOM tokenomics prop goes live on-chain, it can refer voters back to the signaling proposals that passed and point out that the tokenomics proposal is one of the steps that was already approved.

But, I’m no governance expert.

Yes I think it’s the only way to do that
Osmosis should be a (top n) PSS consumer chain
Atom is not a DEX token and Osmo is not a good token for security
Let osmosis optimize its token for its feature using Atom for security
What cosmos hub can do is buy some $osmo and with AAT module (don’t know if it’s already live !? ) use it to participate to osmosis governance in name of the cosmos hub governance
That means owning and staking atom could give you some voting power on osmosis too
That’s a way to make the cosmos hub a decentralized investment bank

I like this idea, bit AAT is not live, is it ?

I agree with most of it. Buying osmo to be part of governance is another topic or we should discuss this in the same proposal IDK.

Watch this video of Sunny on Interop where he says “ICS as a technology doesn’t make sense for Osmosis because it doesn’t support special validator sets. We want to ask our validators to do more and more”.

Start watching at minute 25

That’s why PSS fit to osmosis now
PSS is ICS v2

With the new possibility to use inactive vals through PSS, could Osmosis use both active Vals that are currently already validating both chains and use their customized Vals even if they are not part of the active set ?

Those inactive vals would only serve to validate Osmo and so could use custom settings that suit Osmo

Victor118:

Atom is not a DEX token and Osmo is not a good token for security
Let osmosis optimize its token for its feature using Atom for security

This is a key issue with a merge or any initial PSS step.
Osmo is only not considered a good token for security because the market cap is relatively low - but it is sufficiently high for the assets secured.

Atom is only a good token for security because the market cap is higher and has a more established reputation from being around longer. The issue it faces is maintaining that high valuation by selling this security to other chains in return for a portion of their revenue/inflation.

The whole needs to be greater than the sum of the parts, and with the sentiment around the Cosmos currently this doesn’t feel like it is the case.

I consider ICS/PSS to be a transitory part of the app to chain pathway, and Osmosis to be one of the Cosmos SDK chains that is towards the end of that pathway due to validation requirements. There are several more obvious candidates for Cosmos Hub to be pursuing to onboard before onboarding Osmosis would be mutually beneficial.

I’m not sur to understand
To me Atom is a good token for security because it’s made for that and nothing else
Osmo is not a good coin because it need to be good securizing AND good at incentivize AND good at providing liquidity …etc
Some of those roles are not compatible

If I’ve undestand your statement @Victor118, I agree with your viewpoint on specialization.

• Specialization is a foundational concept in classical trade theory, particularly the idea of comparative advantage.
• The cooperation between different parties, allowing each to excel in their respective goals.
• It also enhances the efficient allocation of capital by optimizing resource usage, such as the inflation.
• Additionally, specialization will enable projects to clarify and refine their strategy, helping them concentrate on their strengths.

For ours lovely BC : ATOM and OSMO, having each focus on what they are best at ATOM for security due to its market cap and reputation, and OSMO for liquidity and incentivization seems to align with this idea of specialization.

“That’s why PSS fit to osmosis now.” @Victor118

JohnnyWyles: I consider ICS/PSS to be a transitory part of the app to chain pathway, and Osmosis to be one of the Cosmos SDK chains that is towards the end of that pathway due to validation requirements. There are several more obvious candidates for Cosmos Hub to be pursuing to onboard before onboarding Osmosis would be mutually beneficial. We share your view on this matter. The integration of Osmosis into Partial Set Security (PSS) is indeed a complex issue, far beyond simply onboarding as a consumer chain. It requires addressing multiple critical stages as it is the case for every chain already operating—starting with a rework of the tokenomics, followed by a transition towards a more governance-focused role for OSMO. Only after these foundational steps are addressed by the Osmosis community would we consider the technical implementation of Osmosis as a viable PSS candidate. That said, both the Osmosis and Cosmos Hub communities stand to gain significantly from one another. We strongly encourage a collaborative approach toward this long-term goal, continuing the partnership we’ve built, despite a few setbacks along the way. At Govmos, we possess a deep understanding…

Excerpt (1198 of 1356 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

shouldnt the validators choose whats best for the chain?