Sunsetting Atom Accelerator DAO (AADAO)
Summary After careful consideration, Atom Accelerator contributors have unanimously voted for the DAO to go into maintenance mode and return all funds not needed to fund grantee obligations and maintenance mode activities, back to the community pool. Motivation As we approach the Alt Coin season, the Cosmos Hub needs a team to support its growth effectively. In the past year, the team at AADAO: • Secured core infrastructure for the Cosmos Hub, including funding the Hub’s IBC relayers ; establishing a first-party archive node , improving data reliability for integration partners; and establishing reliable data pools for all other developers on Lava Network . • Successfully supported the regular Cosmos Hub Testnet Program , helping it incentivize validators for higher engagements, as well as accelerating the launch of PSS by funding the ISLE testnet . • Arranged for an emergency security audit for the Liquid Staking Module • Helped to demystify the economics for PSS , with a tool that is used by every team considering adopting Interchain Security • Significantly increased ATOM utility in NFT and CFTs, including securing ATOM minting on Stargaze , promoting ATOM at live…
Excerpt (1198 of 8337 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Lots of positives to take away from this truly unique effort. Hope the best stick around , we need you!
Cheers
I noticed a lot of contributors who were clearly invested deeply in to making this a success. It’s a shame things went the way they did, but after seeing how some were treated by the public and the general hassles of it all, I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to continue.
There’s still a valuable role a DAO of this type could play for the Hub, so hopefully it gets some continuation in another form.
Thank you for your service, especially to those I worked with closely - Syed, Joni, Reena, and Jordy. I know you four were always showing up with your best intentions.
I’ll catch y’all around the Interchain!
Vaya con Dios.
We, the Ark Protocol team, want to express our deep gratitude to the AADAO team. Especially: Syed, Curious J, Mark and Malek!
We do understand why operations cant be continued - it is a real pity that this team isnt able to continue operations under this circumstance. Though we DO hope Cosmos is finding a way of keeping those advocates for the ATOM Economic Zone!
We’d fully support for a new AEZ DAO for driving Cosmos into a bright future!
Long Live ATOM!
ATOMAcceleratorDAO: While we at AADAO are firm believers in operating transparently and being held accountable for our actions, we believe that the current approach of the Oversight Committee has created a challenging dynamic that significantly hinders our ability to operate effectively. As such, no AADAO contributor wants to continue working in the DAO or to lead it going forward. AADAO’s decision to sunset operations comes as a surprise. In fact, we discussed how they might revise their current mandate as recent as yesterday – and contributors expressed a desire to defer the decision to January 2025. Core Issues The Mandate The fundamental challenge facing AADAO, as seen from an oversight perspective, lies in its inability to effectively define a clear and actionable purpose for its future. The current mandate of galvanizing the DAO’s efforts around “value accrual for ATOM” is overly abstract and fraught with practical and known shortcomings: • Subjective Interpretation of “Value”: The term “value” continues to lack concrete definition and qualification, leading to inconsistent and subjective interpretations; as made manifest through its decisions and key…
Excerpt (1194 of 9988 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Wow, what a shitshow.
This is Oversight working as it should. The mess here was created at the genesis of the DAO under the previous GM. The current team were all handpicked by him - we are seeing the results of that now.
Way forward is an RFP process to decide on what the DAOs mission should be going forward (can’t be something as inane as value accrual to Atom). With motivated actors and real KPIs. The current set up is a mess that’s been allowed to continue for way too long.
Kudos to Oversight for standing on business.
Hello my name is Matthew Richards most people call me Matt. You may know me from my X account @_CryptoNomad1 or from my YouTube channel Matt’s Crypto Corner. I am a deep advocate and educator of cryptocurrency with a background in cybersecurity methodology, and I am a true cosmonaut with a strong love for the ATOM token and the projects within the COSMOS ecosystem. I am very saddened to see the sunsetting of the AADOA team because I was a true believer in the people behind the scenes and their goal to make ATOM a great asset making all its holders proud. I want to do my part and help contribute to any further formation of the AADOA team doing my best to make a brighter future for ATOM and its ecosystem. ATOM has a strong community the Technology binding the cosmos is unmatched in the crypto industry. This ecosystem has some of the best people committed to making constant improvements and is second to none with IBC technology. Those in this community who are loyal to ATOM who want to see it in the GREEN rivaling all the best projects deserve to have that dream come true and that is what my goal is. My goal is to help contribute in any way that I can to the best of my…
Excerpt (1194 of 1489 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
ATOMAcceleratorDAO: In total, just looking at our grants program, we processed 368 applications, which otherwise would have likely been governance proposals, rejecting over $33.77 million worth of unviable funding requests to safeguard Hub’s resources over the past 20 months. This is not correct. Before the AADAO was created there were not almost 400 governance proposals requesting funding, and if the AADAO had not been created, following this trend there wouldn’t had been neither 368 governance proposals requesting funding. This argument to avoid so many governance proposals thanks to the AADAO was one of the initial flawed arguments presented by Youssef in favour of the AADAO. The AADAO didn’t ‘safeguard’ the Hub’s resources for the last 2 years, the reason why there weren’t 400 proposals before requesting funding is that there is a risk involved since a deposit of ATOM is needed for the proposal to go on-chain. This is just a perfect filter: most of the low quality projects that applied to the AADAO wouldn’t have put a governance proposal if they knew they were bringing little value and risked having their proposal rejected and ATOM deposit burned for spamming.…
Excerpt (1193 of 1894 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Thank you for your service. We respect the decision made and recognize it as the most viable outcome under the circumstances. The abundance of reasoning provided highlights that there was no feasible alternative.
We sincerely hope the community will find the resilience to rebuild a stronger entity and learn from the missteps that led to this unfortunate situation. As pioneers, we understand that mistakes are often stepping stones to future success.
A special thanks to the team who navigated this challenging period with remarkable professionalism, staying steadfast until the very end.
Sincerely,
Govmos.
At CryptoCrew, we would like to express our gratitude to all AADAO contributors. Having collaborated closely on various projects, we can attest to the quality of work and personal dedication that was delivered by the team. We sincerely hope that you will keep contributing to the Hub and the Interchain and we look forward to seeing what you will do next!
In relation to what people are suggesting about continuing the AADAO in a different form, I’m on board with some of the things Rizbe is suggesting. Some of his recent tweets have some good thoughts in them. Here’s one: x.com
Axis Advisory will be taking a look at AADAO’s operations to assess whether the structure can be overhauled or continued w/new personnel, operational parameters, & renewed vision.
We will be keeping you updated!
Kind regards,
Immutablelawyer
Axis Advisory
ImmutableLawyer: assess whether the structure can be overhauled or continued w/new personnel, operational parameters, & renewed vision At Govmos, we firmly believe that the DAO’s internal decision to sunset its operations, as determined through a DAODAO vote, should be fully respected. This reflects the organization’s acknowledgment of the challenges faced and the impossibility of continuing under the current framework. Cosmos_Nanny: Claims that oversight obstructs AADAO’s operational effectiveness are disappointing. This is particularly troubling. Oversight should act as a safeguard, not as an impediment. The suggestion that it has obstructed operations raises concerns about the extent to which oversight may have overstepped its original mandate. Additionally, any attempt to maintain control by replacing members while retaining the same structure only exacerbates these issues. Cosmos_Nanny: Can a new team develop a relevant and revised mandate? We strongly oppose any effort to “revamp” the AADAO by replacing its members and continuing under the current framework. Once the DAO’s remaining activities have been finalized as outlined in…
Excerpt (1199 of 1770 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I tend to agree with what Govmos says, in the sense that it is probably better to start fresh with a reset of the DAO members, in order to avoid starting off on the wrong foot and to begin something new.
That’s not how cosmos hub governance works…
Govmos: This is particularly troubling. Oversight should act as a safeguard, not as an impediment. The suggestion that it has obstructed operations raises concerns about the extent to which oversight may have overstepped its original mandate. Additionally, any attempt to maintain control by replacing members while retaining the same structure only exacerbates these issues. In response to allegations regarding impeding operations, Oversight has acted fully within its prescribed mandate. Cite an example of how and when we over reached. When presented with prima facie evidence for misconduct and mismanagement of ATOM resources, we’re duty-bound to conduct appropriate investigations and provide requisite notifications to stakeholders. Such actions constitute basic exercise of oversight’s mandated responsibilities. The sole instance where accusations of “obstruction” were levied by contributors against us transpired DURING a time when oversight expressed concerns that the proposed salary increases exceed the compensation parameters established via 865. We’re just reinforcing what was approved by governance, and ensuring compliance. See for yourself. From AADAO Slack…
Excerpt (1199 of 1265 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Govmos: At Govmos, we firmly believe that the DAO’s internal decision to sunset its operations, as determined through a DAODAO vote, should be fully respected. This reflects the organization’s acknowledgment of the challenges faced and the impossibility of continuing under the current framework. It’s imperative to distinguish between individual contributor resignations and the organizational continuity of the DAO, which was established through hub governance. Resignations from current cohort of contributors should not be conflated with “sunsetting” the DAO . While contributors retain discretion regarding their individual participation, it would exceed contributors’ authority to unilaterally dissolve an organization established through governance procedures . Imv, the contributors as a collective do not have authority to deprecate the DAO structure itself. Substantial resources have been invested in establishing the DAO’s operational and legal framework, and this infrastructure should remain available for potential succession by new contributors under modified or renewed mandates (assuming the new mandate is approved through hub gov). Oversight previously advised…
Excerpt (1196 of 2104 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
TLDR.
Don’t propose a second mandate and sell it to the community with the feature of electing oversight, if you’re not willing to work under such framework.
Rather than claiming that oversight is overstepping their mandate, say explicitly what they were doing that was overstepping.
It’s one thing if you’re mad that you can’t throw around salary raises that exceed what you proposed, it’s another thing to say that they’re not doing what they’re supposed to do. Help you make do things the right way
What’s right?
-Bringing to light misconduct as to your own ethical guidelines → you voted him out
-Reminding you of your proposed salary brackets → you agreed
-Telling you that you shouldn’t vote yes on this daodao proposal that censured Pati because you’d roll out a red carpet for Youssef to strike back. → you changed your vote
Oversight is not to blame having to step in so many times when it’s you who obviously aren’t professional enough to do things the right way.
Hello, We’re new to the Cosmos forums but bring a wealth of experience in capital allocation. If there is anything i and missing, apologies in advance. Our team has already manages money for TradFi endowments and pension funds, guiding them across a diverse range of asset classes, including on-chain investments and off chain, credit/ private equity etc. From our perspective, many challenges in the DAO space arise due to misaligned incentives, limited institutional experience, and concerns over cost structures. Fundamentally, assets should never leave the DAO’s ownership without a well-thought-out framework; they’re best deployed through a professional, transparent third-party structure. We already provide these services for institutional clients and would be thrilled to help DAOs achieve the same level of sophistication. For instance, we can explore a legal structure—whether DUNA-based or another customized approach—ensuring the DAO retains full ownership of its assets while partnering with an experienced allocator. This could take the form of a limited partnership with the DAO as the principal owner. Our governance and investment approach is tailored to align with DAO…
Excerpt (1197 of 2934 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
So, you had nothing to say during quite some stories in or around AADAO, but are now here, offering your services?
All this entrance and not a single link that would verify anything you claim to be?
Again, new here.
We aren’t selling anything as opposed to showing you really what you should have received in the first place. I may have missed the formal period, and again my apologies.
I mean I am happy providing you with relevant l links cv etc. In a full post, can type it up right away.
Not trying to be counterproductive to the long term capital allocation and value creation of cosmos. But rather, I don’t see why cosmos DAO should be treated differently than any institutional served endowment.
I am happy to provide you with required docs etc. May I ask, why is the trust a British Virgin island reg trust but regulated in Jersey?
Was there any legal advice that you received when setting this up, if so who? Again I might be missing something, hence why just want to figure out what exactly as the prior structure puts a lot of trust in the hands of “Enforcers” .
Note. My subjective/professional opinion if this was my companies or if it as creditor is to litigate whoever the AADAO was earning 14k base salary month and I am not a lawyer, just a creditor by profession.
AADAO does not have an endowment.
It owns no assets. @Discere
Thank you for clarifying. If the response you received was overly focused on the legal structure or jargon, it’s worth reiterating your broader point about the systemic issue of misaligned incentives and value destruction within DAOs. The essence of your argument is critical: the lack of sophisticated capital allocation frameworks, like those employed by university endowments or research trusts, leads to missed opportunities for sustainable, long-term value creation in DAOs. You are addressing an important gap—DAOs often lack access to the kind of strategic financial advisory that could realign incentives toward growth and resilience. The emphasis should shift from purely legal or technical structures to frameworks that help DAOs achieve better financial discipline, resource efficiency, and incentive alignment, ensuring their protocols grow sustainably over time. Framing your wider point in terms of actionable steps or parallels to traditional financial models (like endowments) might help direct the discussion toward practical solutions, avoiding a narrow focus on the past failures. I guess you are really the person lost knowledgeable here, I may have missed it, but would love…
Excerpt (1199 of 1313 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hi, would like to share a comment on my subjective view of this story through the experience we had in 2023 and since. We proposed to pilot a deliberative process within the Hub as a way to improve the quality of governance. For this we applied for a grant from AADAO which was granted in Summer 2023. The minute we started the work, we were properly under fire from the “community”. But “community” is not community. Actually this was the very reason why we proposed a deliberative process: To surface the views of the silent majority and not the loud minority. I think both are needed, but the silent minority is often … well silent. So the loud minority has a overproportional weight in the discussions (not judging the content of those voices, only the weight). The case of the AADAO / Oversight conflict is typical of this logic. The oversight body emerging from the active minority has managed to put so much pressure on the AADAO that at the end the team decided to quit. So, in the end the “community” managed to overrule a process which was at some point mandated by the community through a Hub proposal. In terms of power dynamics, this is strange as it may seem that oversight is…
Excerpt (1198 of 3941 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hey all, Disclaimer: I write this reply in my personal capacity in light of my personal views, and not in the name of or as a representative of the dYdX Operations team, or any client represented by Axis Advisory. I see a lot of people proposing designs, frameworks etc. Let’s pause a bit here. Before working on any other incentive or grant program, we are of the opinion that a post-mortem needs to be carried out on AADAO to understand the pitfalls, pain points, areas of optimisation and where Cosmos can do better. One cannot suggest a fix without first evaluating where the issues have arisen. Additionally, and based on our experience, sunsetting a program with a legal wrapper (as is the AADAO Trust), is not done this way, at all. Jumping ship and terminating through a forum isn’t a legally enforceable mode of termination for DAO-established trusts (based on our experience, and assuming that the structuring of the Trust was done correctly by the initial proposers and involved parties). Let’s not attempt to fix issues w/haphazard approaches. Sweeping everything under the rug isn’t the way here. I highly recommend conducting a post-mortem assessment of the (potential)…
Excerpt (1196 of 1417 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I agree with this statement. The only active community members are those IDs that are often seen. Most community members never speak and don’t even know the existence of forum.cosmos.network.
Fully agree. There needs to be a post mortem on AADAO and its many, many failures. Going ahead, Oversight needs to be part of any future plan. Its literally the only thing that’s worked.