Connecting Businesses: Empowering Stack Adoption with a Data Bridge (using NFTs)
Update (July 26th, 2025) – Prop #1006 is onchain for voting Vote here: Mintscan Proposal #1005 failed due to clarity, $ATOM alignment, and cost issues. We’ve listened to community’s feedback and ICL’s vision, focusing on enterprise needs and $ATOM value. Alignment with ICL Vision • Businesses seek: • Sovereignty : running their custom blockchains and e.g. not relying on Ethereum. • Interoperability : Data/token exchange via IBC Eureka, routed through the Hub. • Supports businesses, enhancing Stack adoption and $ATOM value per ICL’s vision. For details check Cryptocito’s full interview with Mag here: https://x.com/Cryptocito/status/1945214389902029043 Here’s a technical web2/web3 analogy between `Smart Contracts using IBC + Bridge` and `Web applications using TCP + HTML`: IBC Eureka + Bridge in Web3 is, simply said, like TCP + HTML in Web2: While IBC is the base layer connecting blockchains (like TCP links servers), our bridge adds an application layer for business data (like HTTP delivers web pages). Our bridge, being built on top of IBC Eureka, transfers complex data (via NFTs) - including(!) ownership - between smart contracts or wallets across…
Excerpt (1192 of 12685 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
This will be a game changer for all parties. Excellent proposal @ark_team Ark protocol, you have my full support! LFG! 
Completely reasonable asks.
BackBone Lab would be happy to support either reasonable option, as ARK has an excellent track record.
@mr-t is a significant asset to any community, and the ARK vision fits perfectly with the broader Cosmos vision of connecting everything.
I support this proposal. The requested amount is absolutely adequate.
This looks reasonable,considering they’ve already built NFT bridges to 7 different chains. Building an EVM bridge and introducing Inscriptions would bring something new to Cosmos. The requested amount also seems fair for developing something new, especially when compared to SG’s $15 million proposal,this is donut money in comparison. It’s good to finally see teams aiming to build something different in the Cosmos ecosystem …
Regulator Was Review Sanction on This proposal Good. But I will need To See on How our Community Members actfull To Defend this proposal.
My experience with the Ark Protocol team has been very positive. They’ve shown exceptional motivation, passion, and creativity, particularly around NFTs and cross-chain tooling. They were the first to step up and carry forward the vision of Asteroid Protocol, which, while small at the time, was an early signal that Cosmos Hub had a unique culture and community emerging. The inscription feature was especially valuable given it launched during a time when smart contracts weren’t yet live on the Hub.
From AADAO’s side, we’re not proposing any new funding. Rather, if the community supports this proposal, we’re prepared to release the remaining $35K from the originally approved $80K grant to support Ark in executing this development.
Best of luck and eager to read the other comments 
Thank you for submitting this proposal. While the mission is compelling, I have significant concerns about its current structure, transparency, and projected ROI for Cosmos Hub. To evaluate the true impact of this grant request, I’d ask for the following concrete metrics and business justification: Requested Metrics Please provide verifiable statistics for the following: • Unique addresses that have used your ICS-721 interchain bridge • Total number of NFTs currently bridged cross-chain. • Revenue generated by Ark Protocol to date (if any) • Unique addresses that have interacted with your marketplace • Total transaction volume processed by your marketplace Without these metrics, it is difficult to justify the grant based on ecosystem impact or traction. UX Concerns Frankly, the current UX/UI of Ark Protocol is very poor. It’s unintuitive, buggy, technically confusing—even for experienced users—and not suitable for onboarding new participants into Cosmos. Suggestion: Please prioritize hiring a dedicated UI/UX designer and consider developing a simplified “for dummies” interface. If the frontend remains inaccessible, then all underlying tech benefits are…
Excerpt (1197 of 2469 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I’m glad you are asking ! User Metrics It aint easy retrieving all TX history for bridged NFTs across all 7 chains since we went live in Oct 2023 (actually I dont even know there are even RPC nodes storing all TX data since genesis). So far ~60 collections have been using our bridge. We have recently open our bridge allowing ALL collections being able to transfer. Last metric is outdated, but from Jan - April 2024 in total 8k NFTs have been transferred. Check out the stats and paper I was honored to present to IBC Protocol audience: https://x.com/IBCProtocol/status/1785964964081176675 Ark owns Asteroid’s marketplace for inscriptions but not for NFTs yet. Part of this proposal is wrapping inscriptions as NFTs and extend its marketplace for this. The only revenue we’ve made so far was made though our EAP and AIP (“Passport NFT”) utility-based NFT collections launch. Our last and final collection will be the first PFP collection on Cosmos Hub - coming this month. Besides this: Ark’s focus is on NFT utilities. NFTs are mainly static and their metadata (traits, PFPs) werent able to change. Our latest contribution to the standard NFT contract (aka cw721 v19, “genetic NFTs”) has…
Excerpt (1199 of 3767 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
You haven’t answered a single metric. • Unique addresses that have used your ICS-721 interchain bridge • Total number of NFTs currently bridged cross-chain. • Revenue generated by Ark Protocol to date (if any) • Unique addresses that have interacted with your marketplace • Total transaction volume processed by your marketplace You haven’t provided a proper business plan or ROI for the Hub (ROI can be in form of user growth). You haven’t included any milestones, because the metrics most likely look very unpleasant and setting targets that are reachable would also need to be quite low. Just stating that BAYC makes 1.5M ETH volume shows me how far from reality this proposal is, if you believe a single BAYC will be transferred to Cosmos (or any other collection for that matter). Bring the official Collab + Statement from BAYC (or any other significant collection) that they will support your bridge and provide some sort of marketing / BD to use your bridge (and most likely needed incentives) and I will start shill posting your prop and write every validator. There is no reason for collections or communities to transfer their NFTs over and fracturize both their liquidity…
Excerpt (1198 of 1633 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Answered parts of it. We dont have a marketplace yet. So n/a for 3 to 5. Will try my best on 1 and 2, but gotta wait until Tuesday.
But as I said: Mad Scientists (Osmosis) made $1.9M revenue on Stargaze secondary sales. As u know: the Hub has plans for onboarding one (or even more) marketplace(s).
BAYC is a legitimate example, since this is about bridging NFTs between Ethereum and Cosmos. So any kind metrics on Cosmos isnt enough. If u ask for metrics, than we have to look at Ethereum as well. Like on Magic Eden. And for anyone it’s pretty CLEAR the numbers here are A LOT bigger compared to Cosmos without even looking into it in details.
Again: the bridge is a public good. No one needs to collab with Ark. Any collection can bridge it, permissionless!
One more note on UX: there other UIs from other teams, you can use for transfer. Anyone can utilize our public good bridge.
Maybe @Zerk and others can provide insights on whether the bridge has been beneficial so far 
.
0xphilipp_eris:There is no reason for collections or communities to transfer their NFTs over and fracturize both their liquidity as well as their community.
This is an assumption from ur side. Others like us, disagree. MS has proven it is wrong.
What others miss: it is not all about marketplace!!! It is about utlities, value you provide to the fam! Even if NFTs are bridge ALL over to Ethereum, you attract them with utilities on the Hub and thats why users will bridge back to Cosmos.
MS is a perfect showcase here. Afaik most holders only bridge to SG because of marketplace, but they ALL bridge back to Osmosis because of the utilities @Zerk and his team is providing there!
Imho, only very few do understand why NFT utlities are so important. This is Ark’s focus.
Enabling bridging of NFTs just for the tech serves no purpose. You need a reason to bridge 2 real use cases for bridging NFTs • Chain obsolescence (Terra Classic, Juno) • Rekt Wolf minted on Terra Classic, after collapse we saw marketplaces and communities leave. Rekt Wolf was the 1st collection to migrate to Ethereum, and has since gotten 100 ETH in volume. Numbers aren’t incredible but the community and collection lives on today. • Rekt Bulls minted on Juno. Loop marketplace and basic infrastructure stopped working… The collection migrated to Stargaze and got a second life with 140000$ in trading volume. Having bridgeable NFTs doesn’t mean the community dies with the chain. • Chain dApp integrations (utility) • Mad Scientists minted on Osmosis, but the NFTs trade on Stargaze because the UI/UX and volumes are there. With 2 million$ trading volume on Stargaze that amounts for 40K in royalties for SG. We’ve seen over +6K transfers for Mad Scientists from 4k+ users between Osmo and SG. • Galactic Mining migrated from Terra to Osmosis to take advantage of DAODAO infrastructure. • Lending/borrowing of NFTs on Stargaze’s Atlas, fraction NFTs on Osmosis…
Excerpt (1191 of 2045 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I’d love to see this move ahead. Ark took over maintenance of Asteroid and delivered on their promises, so I’m confident in their ability to execute. Seamless interoperability of tokens and NFTs across ALL chains seems like an inevitable outcome. The chains that get there first will remain relevant, while others will likely whither.
Thx. This means a lot to us from the Bitcoin Ordinals giga brain and pushing these through inscriptions across Cosmos and possibly other chains like Ethereum in case this prop gets passed. In my very humble opinion anyone should follow you 
.
https://x.com/redphonecrypto/status/1872771031359766628?t=pTlE5CIdQfSIkYmcobYsng&s=19
Im curious how this proposed Ethereum NFT bridge differs from the NFT bridge solution being built (nearing completion) by Union Build & Stargaze?
This proposal is specific to the Hub’s EVM and IBC Eureka. Union is a different protocol and not related to this. I had a chat with Union some while ago and the NFT bridge is on-hold since a while - also their focus is rn on other chains and topics:
Union is still on testnet. The chains they are focused atm are:
I strongly support this proposal, especially the revised version that would allow Asteroid users to migrate their pre-existing Asteroid inscriptions to EVM. Asteroid will always have a massive place in my heart (especially all the incredible creators and people it led me to meet). Enabling Asteroid inscriptions to be bridged elsewhere is such a great way to establish an initial community on Ark and it creates a new future where all that Asteroid energy and history can live on.
The one piece missing is CFT-20s. Would recommend one of two approaches:
- Encourage everyone to bridge their CFT-20s to Neutron (or risk losing them)
- Mint equivalent tokens on EVM and make them claimable there.
I imagine 2 would expand the scope of this proposal a fair amount, so No. 1 might be best… especially since CFT-20s already have AMM support on Neutron via Astroport.
I’m not against the Ethereum bridge, though I’m not sure we can really talk about energy and community when talking about Asteroid. Went there and honestly it was a dead place. Sometimes there wasn’t a single mint or buy in like 2 weeks. I bought 2 NFTs there and regret it, they are unsellable and money is 100% lost. I saw zero activity, the only people minting I guess were creators minting other creators collection, or even their own collection to simulate activity. I think there is more volume in 1 day on Stargaze that they were in Asteroid in its total lifetime lol
edit : just checked, the last buy (0,4 atom) on Asteroid was July 9 , 8 days ago… and the previous one before was July the 1st. No one is using Asteroid, let’s be honest
Yes, that’s correct. It has been down for the last 6 months tbh. There are 2 main reasons:
Reason 1: Delphi Labs originally funded this project last year. Sadly they’ve moved away from Cosmos - it just not their priority.
Reason 2: even though we, Ark, took over operations and legal IPs from Asteroid, discussions with AADAO were delayed and finally closed Asteroid’s remaining grant of $36k USD.
Last year was on a different page, Asteroid had quite a big impact in terms of revenue and inscription numbers.
It’s a valid point. However, judging the protocol by recent activity is a bit unfair. Still 1,000+ members in Telegram (most of whom I assume own inscriptions on the Hub). The inscriptions still exist and will always exist on-chain, but it would be a shame to see the main UI go down without a bridging option. Promised funding for ongoing development was cancelled (even after deliverables were met), so the Ark team has been looking for a way forward. That’s not exactly the sort of environment where people will be looking to start trading/speculating. Porting over historical content and bringing a Cosmos/EVM bridge to life, however, still feels net positive to me.
More than that, though, leaving Asteroid hanging feels like the Hub’s kicking genuine users to the curb.
redphone:judging the protocol by recent activity is a bit unfair.
Not sure what you define by “recent activity”. What I was referring to in my last comment dates back to 10 months ago, and even then, activity was close to zero.
Bought those 2 NFTs 10 months ago and… it’s still the last to buy on this collection, which seems to be the case for most collections anyway.
But yeah.. maybe 1.5 years ago it has some activity I’m not aware of. UI isn’t terrible, but it’s very poor feature wise.
I’m not against improving it, make bridges so NFTs can move around. I guess if Mad Scientist, sloths, BK could be bridge there we would see volume through arbitrage, but AFAIK there is no NFT from Asteroid that have gather interest.
This is a great use case to bring culture…we cant have all “serious apps” that try to overthrow or supplement the world financial system…we need some degen/speculative stuff that more people can relate too…for the funds asked and the potential it can bring, it seems like a no brainer
I find this proposal really interesting and with great potential to expand the Cosmos ecosystem. By establishing an NFT bridge from Ethereum to Cosmos, it opens up many new opportunities, especially for NFT enthusiasts, DeFi users, and metaverse applications. What’s great about it? Smooth NFT interoperability — Ethereum NFTs can move into Cosmos, allowing more users to participate without being limited by a single chain. A more vibrant Cosmos ecosystem — With wider NFT access, activity and innovation within Cosmos are bound to increase. Boosts IBC usage — This bridge could be a catalyst for more secure and seamless cross-chain transactions. Points to watch out for Bridge security — Since this involves high-value assets, thorough security audits are essential before launching. Ethereum gas fees — Still a major challenge; solutions to reduce cost burden on users need consideration. NFT data management — NFT metadata must be carefully maintained to avoid issues when moving between Ethereum and Cosmos. My suggestions Conduct extensive testing and security audits before mainnet launch. Ensure the bridge is modular and upgradeable to handle future tech or security…
Excerpt (1198 of 1551 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
And you judge this proposal based on Asteroid’s volume?
This is a PUUUUBLIIIIIC GOOOOD, like Asteroid (all that went into Asteroid went back to the community anyway, one way or the other and the platform is there and working)
It’s not even about Asteroid dude, it’s about connecting people from different ecosystems, decentralization, lower fees and more creativity and users for those on Ethereum/Solana, more liquidity and more users for us on Cosmos. It’s all about this in my eyes…free movement, tools.
These are the bonuses for Stargaze, Superbolt, Asteroid, folks on Injective, abandoned eco’s like Luna, hopefully for some it will connect to Stash on Secret as well. ..and DAO DAO is really a huge elephant( in the best way possible) that still goes largely unobserved and doesn’t exist in this form on Eth or Sol…
And now, speaking about your choice of investments, it’s your choice of investments, maybe if you would have read that guys X page you would have understood what was the use for that and if it’s a suitable investment for you..Don’t judeg the potential of an app based on your timing & investment choices.
Look a little further than the tip of your nose ppl…
If this is supposed to benefit other NFT chains in the cosmos, why not ask for shared funds rather than asking everything from the cosmos hub?
Why ask for Atoms rather than USDC, which would not exert selling pressure, knowing that the hub has a USDC treasury ?
addingbio:And you judge this proposal based on Asteroid’s volume?
Not at all, I was just responding to previous comments saying how Asteroid is hyped, full of energy and has a big community, which is simply not true. I just don’t want people to create fake narrative to push a proposal.
In regards of the ETH bridge, I’m in fact pretty supportive but let’s not summon fake “energy” and strong community when there is none.
Edit : and in regards of my investment choice, yes it was a mistake, I should have not buy anything on Asteroid ever! Hopefully I only buy 2 NFTs (3 ATOM total so it’s not a huge loss and rather a good experience), but anyone who would have mint and buy for hundreds/thousands of dollars worth of NFTs would have been completely rekt, more than the usual cosmos rekt even.
Ooook, that is not for you to judge..check aaaany other platform where ppl mint n sell nft collections and with a whole lot of certainty any of us can say that over 60% of the stuff gets abandoned and falls far below minting price in usd…you sport a Mad scientist..why don’t you cry about ppl buying one with 800 usd worth of lab ? I’ll tell you why because it is not fair and you are way beyond partial, for you this is a way of taking revenge..for 3 atom and your off beat decision.
Maybe with this bridge being built you’ll find your buyer? Have you thought about it like that? , because that seems to be your problem and not anything else.
You realize there are people there who have really cool collections and projects? Are there fake names and collections in between? Yes, certainly, but we the rest of the creators don’t like that either and it’s not something that is easily solvable unless you have a team of kyc’ers and gatekeepers…or a solution.
and I thought it was specific to IBC eureka and cosmos EVM on the hub. since it has been abandoned how would it work? personally I vote no, because the funds would have to be requested from several chains in addition to the hub to found public good. the time when the hub funded public good is over
You seem angry, are you okay? You’re a creator on Asteroid and you don’t like that I said there’s no one on this platform? Besides, you’re being extremely disingenuous. There’s 1,000 times more volume and trading on Stargaze than Asteroid. There are still dozens of Mad Scientists, Bad Kids, Sloths, Wale Sharks, Omies, etc. trading every day on Stargaze. Yes, prices have dropped, but we’re talking about Asteroid… lol, there’s about one purchase at 0.4 atoms every two weeks, if not less. In fact, we can’t even compare the two platforms. One is alive, even if it’s not a party right now, and the other is a ghost town. Buying a MS at 800 USD is 1000 times a better deal than buying 800 USD of any NFTs on there… your 800 USD would be 100% lost. By the way, since my first comment in this post, 2 days ago, they were not a single purchase. Capture d’écran 2025-07-19 à 19.02.48 1836×1400 68.6 KB Capture d’écran 2025-07-19 à 19.08.49 568×1010 125 KB Relax, everything will be fine, I already said that I was not against the NFT bridge with Etherium, and so much the better if the Ark team manages to do something good with Asteroid EDIT : 800 USD sales are pretty rare, most of…
Excerpt (1199 of 1580 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Do you really think that folks from Etherium will mint 50 cents NFTs from low quality AI generated collection without any activity for the past 10 months and from a random creator ? 
The only way I can see Asteroid succeed right now is if they can bridge already sucessful NFTs from elswhere like MS, Sloths.. etc from Cosmos and ETH NFTs that can be trade on it thanks to arbitrage, THEN new collections native to Asteroid could shine, because the platform shine and have succeded to build a community through actual activity.
lol, I honestly and sincerly dont care if anyone on Eth is going to buy any of the collections you are showing or not, Jesus man,what I’m trying to say is that that is exactly what i care about, giving people the posibility to create,buy or sell anywhere based on their needs and this proposal is about building a bridge for everyone to use and that is it. The rest yoour arguments are simply hate towards the whole. That is wrong. Go brag on the profiles of those people on X or where ever. Dont drag down the app, the tool or this proposal which is about a public good, something for everyone to use across Cosmos and bridging to/from Ethereum. “From” is the more fascinating part..but also the reach that is provided to any creator on Stargaze, Asteroid, Superbolt, Magic Eden and other apps..and if you would have bothered to read you wouldnt have had to repeat some stuff… This is the point here not your investment and opinion about one collection or the other. You were the angry one starting to diss everyone for your choice…I didn’t diss anyone here but you associate your choices with everyone else…I dont care about the veggs, beetles, worms, mad scientists or whatever you bought, it…
Excerpt (1198 of 3047 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Bridge to everyone but just funded by the hub. It is a mistake
You’re the only one here attacking me personally, you look so butthurt dude. At which point did I victimized myself ? Do you really think I care about 3 atom ? What you call “hate” is just my honest opinion about Asteroid, because you don’t like my opinion doesn’t mean it’s hate…You don’t want me to respond to you, but you keep responding, being more and more aggressive, calling me names What do you even mean by “diss everyone” ? I’m just giving my opinion on the app, not people, unlike you. addingbio: your investment and opinion about one collection. If you had read properly what I said you would have understand I’m not even talking about any particular collection on Asteroid, last screen I have attached is just a random collection I don’t even know, I was just looking in the trending collections tab and pick randomly and show there is no activity. Same for the two NFTs I buy it was just to give an example and share my experience using the platform. addingbio: Sober up, i’m not being disingenuous, i just don’t put up with your self victimization Looks like you really didn’t read my post and just answered overwhelmed by your angry…
Excerpt (1191 of 2269 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
We have to start somewhere. Look, cw-ics721 was initially funded by Stargaze and Juno. Later it got funded by Terra, Dorahacks, Neutron, etc. for new additional features and DevOps on multiple chains.
You may imagine how tedious this process of getting grants and building a public good that is beneficial for the whole Cosmos space.
CosmosEVM is funded by ICL and with the new AAA most CP funds will also support other projects that is beneficial for everyone. Imho, there’s no difference.
You should have made a simultaneous and segregated proposal on several chains of the cosmos with different weightings according to the mcap at the limit. AAA is not yet active. I know that it is complicated to cooperate, but proposals like these will probably no longer pass because of the precedent they send back.
How this bridge would drive value back to Atom ? simply explained. pls
I guess if the Ethereum’s NFTs are bridge to Asteroids running on Cosmos Network, and transfer fees paid in ATOM and trade in ATOM, or a part of the ETH fees collected use to buy back ATOM or stuff like that it could bring some revenue and visibilitty
My concern, which is related to my previous comments being a bit skeptical about Asteroid is, what if the NFTs don’t sell much on Asteroid because the platform lack features and users, and are bridge to other platforms like Stargaze. Volume, fees and revenue would go there while not really benefiting Atom. I’m then agree with you Guinch, that’s a risk for ATOM, funding the public good, then volume happens elsewhere. Prob we could still collect transfer fees from Cosmos Network to other Cosmos chains but the big part comes from trading NFTs, not just transfer
How many chains did Skip connect us too? Can Ark do the same? Regardless on which platform in Cosmos users end up choosing to wander, it’s an open option that provides value to the Hub and a real wheel according to the values and goals promoted by the Inter Chain. I would love to see a Bad Kid on Eth or Mad Scientists or any other collection from the Cosmos’s couple of marketplaces ( yup that is exactly how is see Stargaze, Superbolt, Asteroid, Ark, BackBone…Cosmos’s marketplaces, now interconnected better than anywhere else, everyone did what they could and they knew best, adding utilities and posibilities for everyone. ) and vice-versa too - from Eth to Cosmos… Of course I am frustrated at what you are saying because you said everyone there is a scammer more or less…and unfortunately those are everywhere. I dont have any prob with the price of Mad Scientist man, it was just an example saying that you don’t criticize an application of something based on a market response at a certain time and base your argument 100% on that…kinda risky. This mitigates that a bit by providing further rails and options to ppl who are quick to think “hey i launch, sell w/e, quit, launch another…
Excerpt (1197 of 1586 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hard to tell. Etherem NFT market is $15B afaik. Depends on marketplaces. Like on Stargaze they can be listed in ATOM.
Ark revenue generated will be staked in ATOM. Fees generated in other native tokens will be used to buy back to ATOM.
Parts of revenue will be distributed to reward Ark’s Passport and HUBbits holders in ATOM as well. If this turns out well, these 2 collections may increase ATOM trading volume.
Once it gets attractive more collections will be denominated in $ATOM. Like Mad Scientists, making $2M revenue im 12 months. Within Cosmos this is huge, but nothing compared to the big chains like Ethereum, Solana, Ripple, Tac etc.
It’s all in flux, we all need to see how much liquidity will come in from these chains.
Guinch_Roze:Why ask for Atoms rather than USDC, which would not exert selling pressure, knowing that the hub has a USDC treasury ?
We weren’t aware of this. Good to know. Thx 
Did anyone even suggest using IBC… Am I missing something?
The bridge will be based on IBC Eureka
If you want my vote, make a proposal again with funding shared between the NFT chains, and a participation from the hub that does not exceed 50% of the amount requested and you request this amount with the USDC from the community pool.
Ark is whitelisted on the hub, deploy an NFT app on it, ask for funding and that better
ok so the previous proposal didn’t even get enough votes to achieve quorum, which is just great.
I will read more carefully the new version next week, although at first glance I’m still not convinced it’s worth the cost.
I appreciate that you mention that NFTs can be corporate documents and not just profile pictures, but I am skeptic that there will be much demand at this time and this costly bridge may sit mostly idle for a long period.
It would help if the project was based on a market study or something, with estimates of the expected usage and revenue.
In its current form, it’s about shelling out $90k then $50k more for an audit, without any idea of the ROI for the Hub.
(I’ve gone through the discussion and did not find mention of such study, my apologies if I missed it actually)
Guinch_Roze:If you want my vote, make a proposal again with funding shared between the NFT chains, and a participation from the hub that does not exceed 50% of the amount requested and you request this amount with the USDC from the community pool.
We’ve adjusted our proposal. Summary here (or check update on top): https://x.com/arkprotocol/status/1948913396549665235
Ask has been stripped down to $90k USDC (instead of $200k in ATOM). It now only covers dev part. We’ll check audits later and cover initial operations on our own. We’ll look for other chains to fund this - BUT pls note that the bridge is $ATOM aligned, hence by using IBC Eureka all transfers goes through the Hub! So not sure whether other chains are going to fund this, since $ATOM benefits from this the most.
highstakes: It would help if the project was based on a market study or something, with estimates of the expected usage and revenue. Hey, ser! Good point. There arent many studies out there. From an NFT market perspective you can check this: https://www.coingecko.com/en/nft/global-stats image 592×572 38.8 KB Current global NFT marketcap is at $6B USD. It doubled since last 4 weeks. Pls also check Cryptocito’s interview with Mag, basically it is a bet by onboarding major players like Ripple, TAC and financial institutions for adopting the Cosmos stack, with 2 USP’s: a) sovereignity (allowing them to run their own custom Cosmos chain) and b) interoperability (using IBC Eureka). Mag also notes that many customers/enterprises cares more about running their business (by using dApps) - rather than interested into crypto currencies in the first place. By using the Cosmos stack, they will be able easily connect and exchange data with other dApps and blockchains. IBC Eureka is just an application layer for sending data in a secure and safe way. The bridge allows enterprises/dApps sending data as an NFT to another chain - OUT OF THE BOX. This way dApp developers dont…
Excerpt (1197 of 1473 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Okay for me, you got my vote.
Thank YOU, ser!
This should be a 4/6 multisig and not a 3/6.
Good point, will change.
luisqa:I have worked over this between Cosmos chains, the NFT was successfully sent but i also want that the price, max_supply, etc details can also be send. Has anyone worked over it?
Along with NFT metadata - collection metadata is also send over. We’ve added this to ics721 spec and our bridge has implemented it.