Funding teams to deploy CosmWasm Apps

Now that permissionless CosmWasm is available on the Hub, we need applications. Teams will need incentives to deploy and maintain quality apps. I propose allocating a portion of the community pool to support this initiative. The exact amount and details can be discussed, but resources should be directed only to teams that already have applications live and have demonstrated reliability. There are several reasons why funding these teams is important: • Ecosystem Growth: Early, reliable applications help establish the Hub as a vibrant environment for users and developers. • Network Effects: More high-quality apps attract more users, which in turn encourages additional teams to build. • Reliability & Trust: Supporting proven teams ensures funds are used effectively, lowering the risk of abandoned projects. • Sustainability: Incentives give developers the resources to maintain and upgrade their apps, keeping the ecosystem secure and competitive. • Showcasing CosmWasm: Well-funded, functional applications highlight the Hub’s capabilities and encourage broader adoption. • Avoiding a Ghost Chain: Without strong applications, the Hub risks stagnation and could become…

Excerpt (1199 of 1444 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hey, it seems leadership doesn’t want to do this:

Enable Permissionless CosmWasm Deployment on Cosmos Hub Proposal Ideas

I am in agreement with Barry - I would love to see a way for the community to deploy things permissionlessly on the Hub, but CosmWasm is kind of an awkward choice that will cause downstream problems for us as the ICL and the community. EVM PSS is much better, because we could actually integrate some amazing EVM projects into it that could become a distribution mechanism for ATOM (think - Chainlink prices over IBC from the Hub). It also keeps the Hub safer by separating the permissionless smart …

For what it’s worth, I’ve deployed an app for free on the Hub already with 0 external funding (https://eschrow.com).

I think people will deploy without incentives, and perhaps retroactive small donations for completed projects is a better incentive. One theoretical way to do this is get a small amount of $ from the community pool (e.g., 10k atom), then I could build a voting site smart contract where wallets could vote on completed projects they think deserve micro retroactive funding (e.g., 500 ATOM).

Just my two cents.

While ICL opposed permissionless CosmWasm, the proposal ultimately passed. It’s important to emphasize that no single entity controls the chain or the community pool. The focus now should be on ensuring the Hub launches and sustains high-quality, functional applications as quickly as possible.

To achieve this, incentives should be structured to support different types of builders. Smaller retroactive rewards may work well for indie developers and experimental projects, but established teams will require stronger guarantees to commit resources and long-term support.

Prioritizing existing, proven products has additional advantages:

• Marketing Reach: Mature teams bring established brand recognition and community presence.

• User Base: Onboarding their existing users can accelerate adoption on the Hub.

• Liquidity: Well-developed projects often bring liquidity with them, strengthening the overall ecosystem.

By directing resources strategically, the community can avoid wasted effort, maximize impact, and ensure the Hub grows into a thriving environment rather than risking stagnation.

Sure, I just mean without ICL support it will have to be another community pool or private raise thing.

Also working on the memecoin launcher from his wishlist:

Mintscan

Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks.

Can’t we just deploy atom-centric apps? Apps where all transactions would burn atoms as a basis for use?

According to Mag CosmWasm tx’s burn atom, so if you make the app “free” as I did then it is burning atom through the tx fees without having to charge additional fees to users.

ATOM Launchpad + Governance-as-a-Service • ATOM Launchpad – The Capital of the Interchain ATOM holders stake into a dedicated public pool. This pool becomes a treasury to fund new projects (chains, dApps, DAOs, protocols). Builders apply for funding, and the ATOM community decides which projects to support. In return, stakers receive: • Airdrops of new tokens, • Revenue shares or tokenized upside, • A collective ownership stake in the projects launched. ATOM thus becomes the angel investor of the Interchain, creating a constant flow of projects fueled by its ecosystem. • ATOM Governance Passport – The Metachain of Governance One staked ATOM = one voice in the Hub and in all projects funded by the Hub. Stakers can vote directly or delegate their governance power to a representative via a smart contract: • The representative receives delegated ATOM, • The smart contract stakes these ATOM and redistributes rewards, • The representative may take a commission for governance work, • Votes are executed DAO-to-DAO, linking the Cosmos Hub to the funded projects. This turns ATOM into a meta-governance token: a single governance key…

Excerpt (1197 of 2332 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

AAADAO is that is needed, perhaps.

I don’t think ICL/F members should be part of the decision makers for this pool. Permissionless Cosmwasm happened not because of them but despite them. Decisions on funding apps should be from the community just like the VM was.

please let’s not attract grifters to the ecosystem again. Grants didn’t age well last cycle.

Hey, I’m putting out free stuff, no grift. But most people are not going to waste their time putting out free stuff. Solana is big partly because they turbo funded fun stuff. Lessons to be learned there. P.S. would be cool if your big twitter account s/o’d my free escrow app (https://eschrow.com) or the smart contract tracker I made so we can track what’s getting deployed (https://cosmos-smart-contracts.com)

Sensible to me. If you move forward, just let us all know and we’ll help where we can.

(post deleted by author)

Is this audited? Would never connect my wallet and recommend everybody to be extremely cautious

everything you listed already exists as a sovereign chain. rather than funding new stuff, it would make the most sense to bring products like stargaze, quicksilver home now. even if they stay separate and new stuff is built on the hub, it means multichain was kindof a failure. None of these apps brought revenu to the atom staker other than dust from liquid staking. I dont think we actually need apps on the hub right away, rather some of these chains should go to ics and actually use atom, and benefit the base layer and staker rather than trying to get rich quick with new coins.

LMAO no of course not. As a random guy doing stuff for free in his spare time I don’t have 20k to do an audit. As has been answered in other messages the code is open source here:

Contract: GitHub - tacolopo/cosmoscrow-gaia: CosmWasm escrow contract tailored for Gaia (cosmoshub) deployments
frontend: GitHub - tacolopo/juno-escrow-hub (named juno since I deployed it there first for testing and not knowing permissionless CW would happen on Hub).

You can deploy the contract yourself and run your own frontend, no need to interact with my version if you don’t trust it.

But, the Hub won’t go far at all if nobody uses apps because random developers who are just trying to help make the hub useful get told get an audit and here’s a fat plate of no funding. Just trying to provide something useful as everyone has been clamoring for in the past.

I also put it’s unaudited and to use at your own risk in the youtube video I made that I shared on this forum: Cosmos Escrow App - MVP Live

“Would never connect my wallet” lol then don’t, it’s free so makes no difference to me. Your bags having no utility are the only thing that suffer from this attitude.