Stargaze to Cosmos Hub

Authors: Community Members (Independent) Affiliation: None (not affiliated with Cosmos Hub or Stargaze teams) Status: Draft for community feedback Summary This proposal invites collaboration between the Cosmos Hub and Stargaze to migrate the Stargaze application stack and NFT ecosystem (all NFT collections) to the Hub , while preserving the STARS token’s independence.This move would make the Hub the center of NFT activity across Cosmos and give the Hub a flagship and retail-friendly app. The intention is to align the Cosmos Hub and Stargaze ecosystems strategically, bringing increased user activity , cultural relevance , and application diversity to the Hub, while preserving Stargaze’s independence and creative autonomy.The proposal requests $1.5M to migrate Stargaaze apps: Launchpad, Marketplace, Names, Studio, and all 5M NFTs to the hub. Motivation Stargaze is the cultural and creative heart of the Cosmos ecosystem . It is the leading NFT platform across IBC, supported by a vibrant community of creators, collectors, and developers. The team built some of the earliest CosmWasm applications, and the platform has become the default destination for NFT launches.…

Excerpt (1198 of 5749 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Why not just buy the token?

Plan to Save Cosmos Hub Proposals

It’s time to save the Cosmos. The plan is simple: use Cosmos Hub community pool to market buy OG Cosmos projects like Osmosis, Neutron, Stargaze, Celestia, Akash, etc. Traders will by anticipating massive price pumps due to low liquidity, so naturally they will buy. When the prop passes, there is another massive price pump. This is called “number go up technology”, which we’ve been badly missing. Next, implement x/drip module that distributes these tokens to $ATOM stakers. Now, you’ll be th…

I hold quite a few NFTs on Stargaze and genuinely appreciate what the team built, but at this stage, I don’t see much point discussing this proposal further.
Cosmos Labs isn’t aligned with this kind of spend (they’ve been pretty clear about not funding migrations or acquisitions.) So the Stargaze team will probably need to reinvent or migrate independently if they want to create value now

Thank you for the detailed proposal.

Strictly speaking from a business POV:

1.5M$ are still a lot of money, less than what Shane asked before, but still a lot.
What’s speaking against Cosmos waiting another 3-6 months, wait until the token dumps some more and then acquire it for way less than 1.5M$?

Or why not just fork Stargaze, and built it out on the hub. Hire 5 good DEVs for 100k$ a year and then your prop would just cost 500k$?

I feel like paying more than 1M$ for the IP is very steep.

I agree with this idea in principle. The community pool could be used to re-invigorate the token prices and thus the community. It could directly benefit people who have been staking and or holding these projects for years. I don’t see how moving stargaze to the hub brings users to the hub. I guess if the chain is depricated and all the tx’s that were on Stargaze are now on the Hub it brings tx’s.. but anyone who uses Stargaze is probably already familiar with Cosmos hub, likely already owns atom (as this was most likely their avenue to onramp to stargaze) and is not a “new user” to Cosmos. If Stargaze could show that X amount of users came directly to Stargaze via Kado or something, maybe that’s something worth looking at.

I agree. It’s a ton of money.

Thanks for drafting this @Quasar. I’ve had conversations with several ATOM community members about the proposal, and there’s a lot of optimism around what it represents. I see it as a strong path forward for collaboration between Stargaze and the Hub, one that can set the foundation and example for other projects.

Beyond just this proposal, I believe it marks the beginning of an app ecosystem built around the Hub by the community, to create real value and activity for users.

I’m looking forward to hearing thoughts and feedback from the broader ATOM community here.

Hello everyone, our team is a validator for both Stargaze and Cosmos.

I think Cosmos Hub needs to solve its own problems first before burdening itself with external ones.

Only after these issues are resolved and the future direction is clear, then will we consider such proposals…

On behalf of the Govmos team, we have carefully reflected on this topic and believe it would be prudent for the Hub to wait for further regulatory clarity before pursuing any form of merger or acquisition. The reasoning is relatively straightforward. Based on the current draft of the Clarity Act in the United States, such actions could raise regulatory concerns regarding the Hub’s classification as a commodity. Engaging in acquisitions could be interpreted as a form of profit-seeking activity, potentially reinforcing arguments that align the Hub’s operations with those of a security, rather than a decentralized commodity network. This interpretation might further extend to the community pool, framing its use as part of an “investment contract,” which could have significant implications. Of course, this remains speculative at this stage, as the bill has yet to pass the Senate and its contents may still evolve. Nonetheless, we believe it is essential to act with caution. Until there is greater clarity on how the regulatory framework will define and treat decentralized entities, it seems wiser to avoid any strategic financial moves — such as acquisitions — that could…

Excerpt (1188 of 1450 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I posted a similar prop a few months ago.

I think Stargaze on the Hub is easily worth more than twice this amount, so $1.5M is an absolute steal, and it seems Stargaze leadership has agreed to it. We get a well-developed flagship app, a capable team, valuable assets, and transactions to the chain. Beyond that, it preserves the intangibles of culture and community.

With so many other apps leaving Cosmos, this is an opportunity to secure a meaningful part of its history.

I hope to see this proposal on-chain soon.

Cosmos Labs also opposed permissionless CW.

The community pool doesn’t belong to them, it belongs to all of us. They’ve been in leadership for nearly a year and still haven’t delivered anything that brings real utility to ATOM. We need apps on the Hub to show that meaningful projects can be built here.

From a business POV, everyone is leaving the ecosystem, and we don’t have any apps. I’m not sure you understand the difficulty of creating and maintaining apps.

$1.5M is peanuts for what we get and a community pool worth $40M with hundreds of millions in volume a day. Look at previous props to see what was spent in the past and consider the value we got out of it.

It’s pretty clear it’s not an acquisition. No deal to buy out the token.

Quasar:

Token Policy

• The STARS token remains entirely independent. It will be up to the STARS community to decide whether to maintain the chain or migrate the token.
• No STARS tokens will be purchased, merged, or redistributed.
• Stargaze DAO retains control of tokenomics and protocol-level governance.
• This proposal focuses exclusively on application and NFT migration, not ownership transfer.

I would generally agree with the proposal, but only on the condition that the total amount is capped at 1M maximum.

In my view, the proposed budget is too high, especially considering that the entire allocation would go directly to the team/foundation.

It’s also worth noting that some teams are already considering migrating their contracts to the Hub without any financial compensation, which shows there’s genuine technical and strategic interest in building on the Cosmos Hub regardless of direct funding.

Finally, to ensure proper execution of the deal and avoid any potential misunderstandings, I would suggest including clear delivery milestones and callback functions (or equivalent mechanisms) to guarantee transparency and compliance with the agreed terms.

That said, I do support the overall idea behind this proposal.

Stargaze seems all but dead. I would support the community pool funding a new project. NFT marketplaces are not novel, and it’s easy to deploy and maintain for about 1/10th of this price.

We respectfully disagree with the assertion that this is not an acquisition. By all practical means, it is one — the Hub would be acquiring the application while financing the migration of Stargaze’s infrastructure. This clearly constitutes a transfer of value and operational responsibility, yet it comes with no guarantees or reciprocal commitments of any kind.

From our perspective, this represents a highly unfavorable deal for the Hub. As we’ve stated earlier, we would be genuinely pleased to see Stargaze migrating and deploying its application under the permissionless Wasm core — that’s the direction the ecosystem should naturally move toward.

However, we strongly oppose any attempt to draw from the Hub’s community pool to subsidize such a migration. If the project wishes to integrate with the Hub, it should do so independently, bearing the associated costs of deployment and transition.

I agree with this comment. To take it a step further:

Without assigning any malintent to anyone, it seems clear Stargaze is trending towards 0 and they are looking for a funding life raft. There’s no reason the Hub should finance their migration. They should migrate as it is the sensible thing to do. If they choose not to migrate, we should fund a team to build a Cosmos NFT marketplace.

The question here I think is not to create something from scratch but move already existing things and collections, this has a price in my opinion (but a reasonable price). But the price of moving smart contracts, this should be done without talking about finance.

Our recommendation for Stargaze is to consider migrating to the Hub’s Partial Set Security (PSS). On behalf of the PRO Delegators validator team, we would be pleased to operate this chain, provided that operating costs are covered. Our team was responsible for developing the financial model for PSS: ICS 2.0 Economics : Partial Set Security (PSS) Financial Model Tokenomics Introduction: Given the upcoming launch of ICS 2.0, referred to as Partial Set Security (PSS), we have been tasked to build a financial model as part of a grant submission to the Atom Accelerator DAO (AADAO). Given the prevalent misconceptions regarding shared security models, we recognized the critical need to address this matter. Our proposed solution involved developing a comprehensive financial model to elucidate the underlying mechanics and propose paths to create equitable and durable Cons… This research gives us a strong understanding of the system’s variables and how to configure them for long-term sustainability. Such a migration could enable Stargaze not only to survive but to thrive. For instance, the chain could inherit stronger security collateral with just ten Hub…

Excerpt (1191 of 1770 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

And I vote no because it’s a ridiculous sum of money for a worthless chain that can be easily copy pasted despite Stargaze’s insistence to the contrary. The alternative, which must be considered in a discussion related to an acquisition, finances included!, is to fund an in-house one since Stargaze is obviously not going to migrate without a buy-out.

A community member said to me that he forked Stargazes marketplace, minted Omies without any bug… He didnt have support.

Which other successful teams are migrating their contracts to the Hub without financial compensation? Nothing about this was announced at Cosmoverse.

It’s difficult to accurately value Stargaze because so much of its worth lies in community and culture. But I believe it’s worth well over $1 million, probably closer to $3 million. Especially considering that we don’t currently have any flagship apps. $1.5M seems like a deal because of the situation the entire Cosmos is in.

I also agree that having milestones and a DAO managing the funds is a smart approach.

I don’t think we could community build a successful app for $1.5M. Even if we did it would take years to build up the content, and there is no guarantee of success or quality.