Proposal: Migrate Stargaze, Its Applications, and Collections to the Cosmos Hub

Summary This proposal requests $1.375M in milestone and quarterly disbursements, along with $125k [ATOM] in bonus incentives, from the Cosmos Hub Community Pool to support the migration to and continued development of Stargaze, its applications, and its NFT collections on the Cosmos Hub. As part of this transition, Stargaze will actively market its products alongside the Cosmos Hub through coordinated campaigns, creator/collector outreach, cross-ecosystem storytelling, and consistent visibility across social platforms and partnerships. Stargaze will also expand its business development efforts by onboarding new creators, developers, collaborating with emerging projects on the Hub, and driving integrations that showcase the Hub’s capabilities. The goal is to ensure ongoing development, strengthen creator support, accelerate ecosystem adoption, and deepen alignment with the Hub’s growing network of applications and new B2B clients. The proposal will be posted on-chain in one week. Motivation Both Stargaze and Cosmos are at a turning point. When Stargaze launched in 2021, a dedicated chain was necessary to build permissionless NFT infrastructure.In 2025, the Cosmos…

Excerpt (1197 of 14179 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I find this proposal reasonable. The $1.5M request is modest compared to the cost of building an NFT platform from scratch AND catch up with where Stargaze is now — with no users, no existing successful collections, no volume. It would need a shit ton of incentives to support and acquire users, creators..

In this case, Stargaze already brings existing collections, communities, and proven tools. It is true that trading volume has dropped in the recent 6–12 months — mainly due to uncertainty around Stargaze and the Cosmos ecosystem as a whole. This migration could help restore confidence and reignite on-chain activity around the Hub.

Capture d’écran 2025-11-12 à 21.22.152628×798 152 KB

Ruwan:

New Features After Migration

Are these included in the scope of the proposal?

I’m a huge Stargaze fan and user, just curious if the funding includes continued development and features.

Hello everyone…

Since we are a validator on both networks, I’d like some clarity…

What will happen to STARS token holders? Will they simply be ripped off?

Yes, if the proposal passes there will be continued development of Stargaze.

$STARS will migrate to the Cosmos Hub.

I support the idea of bringing Stargaze under the Cosmos Hub umbrella, but the requested $1.5M is excessive for what’s essentially a CosmWasm migration and some frontend integrations.

The technical scope doesn’t justify that amount . Stargaze already has mature infrastructure, and the Hub shouldn’t overpay for maintenance or marketing.

A more reasonable and defensible figure would be around $300k, milestone-based, tied strictly to tangible deliverables (infrastructure setup, contract migration, and user data transfer). Anything beyond that would be inefficient use of the community pool.

Hello!

If SG will migrate to cosmos hub , will all Stargaze NFT collection holders have to manually transfer their collections to another blockchain, or will this happen automatically for everyone?

I have a question, why NFT Collection migration is 500,000 USDC ?

I totaly for this proposal, just I’m sure, that it can be done cheaper

It means, that we are ready to migrate NFT Collections for 300K easily

So, can we make a tender for this proposal ?

Stargaze is a real product, with real users.

Stargaze can be explained meaningfully.

$1.5 million is a steal for ATOM holders.

These are milestones to ensure performance, not the cost of performance (I think?).

I hope some of the funds are used by the Stargaze team to buy and lock $STARS tokens. That would greatly boost morale and jumpstart the massive, sleeping engine that is Stargaze. I don’t know what the funds will actually be used for (probably to pay salaries and stuff for the team members)… but if some of the funds are set aside to kickstart the STARS token and breath new life into the token, it would be a wise.

Morale is at an all time low. A tiny boost of morale could save the entire ecosystem.

After carefully reviewing the proposal, I would like to share some reservations regarding the requested funding level. The total budget, around $1.5M, feels high relative to the technical scope currently presented. Even considering the code migration, integration work, and accompanying support, it is difficult to assess the justification for such a cost without additional detail. Additionally, certain parts of the proposal suggest that Stargaze may choose to deploy elsewhere if funding is not provided. While this may be understandable from a strategic standpoint, the way it is conveyed can give the impression of implicit pressure, which does not create the most constructive environment for a partnership with the Hub community. Unless there are particularly ambitious or differentiated features planned in the medium-term roadmap and clearly communicated, it remains unclear why the Hub community should commit to such a significant financial outlay. More broadly, I am not opposed to funding delivered in phases tied to concrete deliverables. This can be a healthy approach. However, such a structure would require clear timelines, well-defined milestones, and ideally a clawback…

Excerpt (1195 of 1849 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi,

The proposal goes in favor of Stargaze

• Getting funding to relocate into a new home to survive
• Don’t affect the economy of $STARS - even provide benefits to it

For the Cosmos Hub, it seems there is direct costs

• The requested amount (have to be paid in $ATOM)
• Metrics are quite impossible to know in advance, will it would bring any value to $ATOM? Will users use it? The current activity seems pretty low, why would it change?

In our sense, Stargaze should have taken the last few months since the first proposal to already prepare the migration and be close to it.
From our point of view, it seems like Stargaze is just sitting on a position that their product is inevitable and profitable for the Hub. In reality, after two proposals requesting a funding, it seems more that Stargaze is in position of collapse.

We validate both networks and like the product, but it seems unreasonable with the current position of the Cosmos Hub to accept such terms.

Hopefully the migration is starting outside of the proposal. Otherwise, it doesn’t feel to be in the current scopes of the new roadmap/vision of the Hub.

It would be a lock —> snapshot –> claim method. Where the NFTs are locked and snapshoted on Stargaze and claimed on the Hub.

$200k to migrate a name service is diabolical.

Possible to let an already IBC enabled collection opt out of this part?

What about ALREDY IBC transferred NFTs? Will this not create a duplicate or missing token on other networks if they’re not on Stargaze at the time?

Totally agree! We need to up the moral of whole ecosystem

Just we have a team of developers, who are ready to do the same for the lower price

If the proposal passes, STARS inflation will eventually end, reducing sell pressure. If the proposal fails, Stargaze will continue to flourish in a new home.

Stargaze already has an active and engaged community. Volume dipped mid-year due to uncertainty about its future, but with clarity ahead, I’m confident activity will rise. Even during this slower period, Stargaze apps have averaged 130,000 transactions per month over the last six months. This would contribute more than 16 percent additional transaction volume to the Cosmos blockchain and increase ATOM utility.

Migrating would also provide wider distribution and lower onboarding friction. The migration will proceed only if the proposal passes.

To clarify, the $1.5M request already represents about a 90% reduction from the original ask made earlier this year. Stargaze is not a concept-stage project; it’s a fully developed, feature-rich product with a live marketplace, launchpad, name service, and thousands of active users. This isn’t something new and untested it exists, works well, and has a seasoned team supporting it.

We’ve also outlined new features: NFT Vaults, Names Marketplace, Collection Chat, and Creator Tools

The tone regarding alternative deployment options wasn’t intended as pressure, simply transparency about our operational timeline. We remain committed to collaboration with the Hub and to full accountability through milestone-based disbursements as mentioned in the proposal.

The migration would be mandatory for all projects on Stargaze. We can take snapshots of other chains to enable claiming.

Stargaze is great!

But why the price of migration of NFT Collections id 500K ?

The NFT migration represents the liquidity and the community. It will drive the most activity on the Hub while supporting overall value and use across the other areas as well. There are more than 3,800 collections and over 5 million NFTs on Stargaze, with a combined market cap exceeding 5 million dollars for the top collections.

however with how ICS721 works what happens to the NFTs not on STARGAZE? Are they locked or burned in some form if they are sitting on Neutron etc? You can snapshot sure, or even stop IBC at the time on STARGAZE sure. But what about the ones ALREADY out in the wild? But using our collection for example, if holders choose to never bring their NFT over and claim, and STARGAZE as a chain halts. The tokens already IBC’d off chain still exist in their form correct via their ICS721 “version” At that point do we have a “fork” of sorts for a collection? It somewhat feels like trying to remove pee from a swimming pool… I assume every Stargaze based DAO then too has to move as well What’s this process ultimately look like? As a creator I have 178 holders staked to the collections stargaze DAODAO, it’s foolish to assume they’re all going to be tactful at seeing that STARS is moving, and thus they need to unstake their NFT in order to move not only their NFT, but hopefully stake to the “new” COSMOS based collections DAO which can’t be made until the migration has begun and the collection has it’s address. Do these creators sacrifice decentralization to hold the treasuries in…

Excerpt (1198 of 1753 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I feel like this is the right move for Stargaze. I truly believe the team cares about the platform more than anyone else, and I’m sure they’ve got an amazing plan ahead! Honestly… after exploring the whole Cosmos NFT scene, Stargaze is still the best marketplace out there!

SO LET’S VOTE YES!

I thought about it since my last reply 3 hours ago…

I stand by it. DIABOLICAL costs.

Nothing will happen to NFTs that are already on another chain. Stargaze cannot lock or burn NFTs on Neutron. NFTs already in circulation, such as CEWTs on Neutron, could be claimed on the Hub through a separate claim contract by transferring the NFT to the Hub.

DAOs will need to be created manually on the Hub. Once the lock takes place on Stargaze, transferring NFTs will not be possible. NFTs staked in a DAO will still be claimable on the Hub. Each DAO will need to decide how to manage its operations during the migration. As with all migrations, there will be a finite time to move.

Like-minded people, it is a very big request to convey your idea to the majority of users in order to increase the coverage of responses in this discussion. Could you collect the proposed changes in the form of a table? What do you suggest if people vote in favor and what happens if people vote against the proposal? Currently, the wording is very vague, and it is clear that you want to encourage developers with money, but it is not clear whether the majority will support this. However, I believe that the information and proposal should be presented in a simpler language to reach not only validators but also regular users. In my opinion, a comparison table is the easiest and most understandable way to convey information for decision-making.

I have collections in stargaze, and some of them have already died without the possibility of returning any investments

Could you write more details and specifics? So far, many $STARS holders do not see even a small gram of benefit for themselves in this proposal. You openly write that $STARS will become a token for Fan, but damn, we paid real dollars for it and bought/sold NFTs for it as if it were real money, and now they’re telling us that everything you’ve accumulated is just a meme coin for Fan, and now we want to switch to ATOM. There are a lot of questions and few answers, and your general responses only increase the already high temperature in the room.

On behalf of the Govmos team and the PRO Delegators validator, we believe that using community pool funding to support a project migration sets a dangerous precedent. The Cosmos Hub previously experimented with a grant DAO, and history has shown that this approach led to poor outcomes and misaligned incentives. Now that the Cosmos roadmap has evolved significantly, it is crucial that the Hub is not perceived as a piggy bank for public chains seeking financial support. To be clear, this position is not directed against Stargaze specifically, a project we respect and hope to see thrive within the Cosmos ecosystem. However, the principle remains firm: using the Hub’s financial resources to fund a migration is not acceptable. From a strategic perspective, we recognize that Stargaze’s potential migration to the Hub is a logical step. Like many public chains in Cosmos, it faces the challenge of sustaining operations with a low-revenue model. While its services undoubtedly fall within the realm of public goods, this creates long-term financial alignment issues that hinder economic sustainability. Therefore, migrating to a chain with stronger fundamentals makes sense, yet expecting…

Excerpt (1196 of 1666 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

500k for migration?lmao money washing again
What about START stakers/holders? One more rekt?

The Stargaze migration proposal carries potential cultural value but also major financial and execution risks.

While migrating Stargaze to the Cosmos Hub could bring a ready-made NFT ecosystem and expand ATOM’s real utility, the project’s economic condition raises serious concerns. The $STARS token has fallen from $0.80 to $0.0008 — a 99.9% drop — and Stargaze’s total market cap is only around $2.5M, nearly equal to the $1.5M funding request. Marketplace fees are only 2%, providing very limited sustainable income.

This looks less like a growth initiative and more like a rescue attempt. The proposal lacks measurable KPIs for user growth, transaction volume, or ATOM utility, and it’s unclear how this migration will generate tangible value for the Hub or ATOM holders.

Without stronger accountability, transparent milestones, and a clear plan for long-term sustainability, approving this funding could set a risky precedent for the Cosmos Hub Community Pool.

I don’t see how the Cosmos Hub would benefit from this proposal.

First, Stargaze has already failed in its current form — if it were successful, there would be no need to migrate to the Cosmos Hub. There’s no clear evidence that this migration would bring any tangible value to the Hub.

Second, if this proposal passes, the Cosmos Hub would have to spend 1.5M for a product that has no guaranteed value or proven traction — an extremely high cost given the current situation.

Third, after the migration, the Cosmos Hub would also have to bear additional maintenance costs — developer costs, infrastructure services, and more.

Overall, this proposal looks like a one-sided deal that puts the burden on the Cosmos Hub without a clear path to value creation.

Is this what you are looking for: What Happens If the Proposal Passes vs. Fails Topic | If the Proposal PASSES | If the Proposal FAILS | Stargaze Applications | Marketplace, Launchpad, Name Service, and Studio all migrate to the Cosmos Hub | Apps stay on Stargaze until a future migration to another chain in 2026 | NFT Collections (3,800+) | All collections become Cosmos Hub–native with full continuity | Collections remain on Stargaze until later migrated to a different ecosystem | Users & Creators | All user activity: minting, trading, profiles, names, and moves to the Hub | Activity gradually shifts away from Stargaze and not to the Hub | ATOM Utility | ATOM becomes the main token for minting, trading, and creator tools | No added ATOM utility; benefits accrue to another chain | STARS Token | Migrates to the Hub as a culture/fun token; inflation permanently ends | Remains on a sovergin standalone chain until future re-deployment | Ecosystem Impact | Hub gains a live consumer app, marketplace liquidity, and the Cosmos cultural ecosystem | Hub loses its cultural base and current creator activity |…

Excerpt (1187 of 2212 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

The team originally had a share from the token emission.

They mention how many collections they have, their trading volume, and many other metrics. But I’ve always had one question: if they really have trading volume and take a 2% commission from it, then what’s wrong — why has this affected the price of STARS so badly?

Maybe it’s because those 2% commissions and the inflation are simply being sold on the market.

I didn’t lose much money on STARS, but developers who are truly building for the idea shouldn’t need $1.5 million just for a migration.

Why should those who bought STARS — and already paid for the idea — now be joined by ATOM holders voting to fund that same idea again, so that another 500,000 ATOM end up on the market during the migration, when after all these years the project has shown no positive financial results?

The goal is alignment, not abandonment. There seems to be some misunderstanding about what happens to $STARS, so let me clarify.

$STARS will no longer function as a security token, but it retains its core utility, including:

• Minting

• Trading

• Serving as the base of the Superstars loyalty program

Moving to the Hub strengthens $STARS by providing:

• Greater exposure for the token and the collections that use it

• Higher security and long-term stability

• No more inflation, meaning current holders are no longer diluted

ATOM becoming the default minting token for new collections does not replace $STARS.
ATOM brings scale and new users; STARS remains a functional, active token within the Stargaze ecosystem.

In short, $STARS continues as a minting and marketplace token with improved long-term conditions, not reduced ones.

Thanks for sharing your position. I understand the concern about precedent, but this proposal is not asking the Hub to act as a “piggy bank” for deployments, it’s funding a full ecosystem migration, including 3,800+ collections, a live marketplace, name service, creator tools, and tens of thousands of users. All of which are in use, battle-tested, and do not exist on the Cosmos Hub. This is fundamentally different from a simple contract deployment under permissionless CosmWasm.

The Hub is not being asked to subsidize experimentation; it’s being asked to support the relocation of an existing, mature, widely used Cosmos-native ecosystem that directly increases ATOM utility, onchain activity, and cultural relevance. The community pool exists to strengthen the Hub’s long-term position, and this migration does exactly that.

I respect your stance, but the principle here cuts both ways: ignoring high-impact opportunities because of past, unrelated failures would be an equally harmful precedent.

HAHAHAHAHA

Let me get this straight. You are asking for 1.5 million USDC to migrate your product. STARS, the token of your product, currently has an FDV of $2.4 million, and a daily trading volume of … $12,000.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If you were to somehow take the entire STARS supply and sell it all, I don’t think you’d manage to find $100,000 from buyers let alone $1.5 million.

But here you are asking for $1.5 million for 4 hours of work.

Fear not, I’ve been around long enough to understand that you are not doing this in good faith. You simply see an opportunity to once again extract some good ol’ cash money dolla dolla from the broken system that is Cosmos governance and get “your nut”, as they call it.

Once again a brilliant exit plan from the ever conniving minds over at Stargaze. You all deserve each other. Mwah!

Stargaze isn’t failing the appchain model no longer makes economic sense for small chains. You are seeing this across many Cosmos chains now. The product is one of the most used in Cosmos, it will thrive inside a larger environment.

What the Cosmos Hub actually gains:

• A fully built NFT marketplace

• A launchpad, name service, and creator tools ready on day one

• 3,800+ collections and their users migrating directly to the Hub

• 130,000+ monthly transactions moved onto the Hub or an additional 16% of ATOM usage

• Cosmos’ largest cultural community becoming Hub-native

• ATOM becoming the default minting and trading token

• A flagship CosmWasm consumer app, showing developers what’s possible

The maintance cost would be taken care of by Stargaze.

This migration strengthens both Stargaze and the Hub.

Damn bro, I really hope you get your money cause this sht legendary. Cant even read with a straight face.

I fully support Stargaze but I have to say that I don’t really understand how asking so much funding for uncertain benefits to the Hub and Stargaze could pass. IMO the multichain direction has more potential to bring new users than moving the thiner and thiner userbase to another chain. Why not deploying a Stargaze antenna on the Hub without any funding and then, if there are concrete benefits for both parties, funding could be justified. Again I love Stargaze which is the best marketplace I’ve ever tried, but I think that you should focus on bringing users and building an economic model that makes the platform financially autonomous. Better to learn how to fish than asking for fishes. At this point, Stargaze has to take risks with innovative ideas to survive, I don’t think that funding without a new revenue model would help apart from giving the platform a reprieve. If the proposal fails Stargaze will migrate to another chain, will you ask for the same funding? How do you justify such a huge funding request (apart from “it’s working and has users”)? Could we get a more detailed funding plan? How much time of work for each milestone? How many people will work on it and at…

Excerpt (1194 of 1364 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I believe this migration could genuinely be beneficial for the Cosmos Hub. At this point, the ecosystem is still too fragmented, and consolidating rather than maintaining multiple small appchains feels like a logical evolution—especially now that the Hub supports permissionless CosmWasm. From my perspective, Stargaze is the best NFT platform in the Cosmos ecosystem: • the most complete for creators, • the most user-friendly for collectors, • the only one combining a mature marketplace, a launchpad, creator tools, and a strong cultural history. In that sense, having this entire ecosystem live directly on the Hub does make strategic sense and could clearly strengthen ATOM’s utility and on-chain activity. However, I share a concern that others have already raised: the structure of the requested funding. The amount itself doesn’t shock me, but the way it’s presented feels closer to a transfer price or a valuation of the product, rather than a detailed migration budget tied to specific tasks. To be clear: > I support the idea of the migration, but we need much more clarity on how the funds will be used. What would help a lot are: • a granular breakdown of tasks,…

Excerpt (1199 of 1645 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

1,5M unlocked cash
1,5M in locked/vested ATOM over years with clear objectives after platform migration: EVM support, volume, etc…

Hey! We have been involved in the discussion of this migration proposal from the very beginning and highly value Stargaze as an important part of the Cosmos ecosystem. However, under the current conditions, this deal does not appear optimal — a view that is also shared by the community.

We would be glad to support the proposal if the price were adjusted, but at this stage it does not seem to present a win-win scenario.

I think the prop fails to drive buy-in because it’s not justifying the sticker price, same as last time.

You started with 1.5M and moved from there, this should be structured as actual deliverables, maintenance costs and KPI’s. The section with the least detail is the actual funding plan.

This kind of comment is not really productive. You can disagree with the proposal and still show the proposers (one of the longest-lived teams in Cosmos and just genuinely great people) some respect and decency.

Fact of the matter is that it would suck for Cosmos to lose Stargaze, and regardless of how you feel about this proposal it doesn’t do any good to make the decision to leave easier for them this way.

Not advocating for the proposal one way or the other here. I’m just advocating for some respectful discourse.

Leave your comment on this prop, mate

Stargaze is the only app I use on COSMOS with OSMOSIS. I’ve spent 3 years building community here via NFTS and if that has no value for ATOM HUB then I don’t know what to say.

Engagement is at all time low on Cosmos yet the NFT communities are still here doing spaces and vibing for the greater ecosystem.

How do we put value on IP’s? Artists? Devs associated to these projects? Community? You can’t because they are priceless. I think some are a little shortsighted when they see costs associated with merger when its clearly alot more than that. Be careful what you choose to do here Cosmos.

Couldn’t agree more.
My sources indicate it’s couple minutes of work max for 200K.
This should be reduced by at least 66% across the entire cost.

Thanks for the comment.

The proposal was intended to present a clear, topline number for a full ecosystem migration, loosely modeled after the Mars → Neutron approach. The deliverables are outlined through the migration of each major application to bring all activity onto the Hub.

This isn’t framed as a service deal. It’s a partnership, and the funding reflects the value of Stargaze as it exists today and its future alignment with the Hub.

Nice Bad Kid by the way.

Changelog December 7th 2023, exclusivity terms have been removed. Summary The Neutron Foundation will grant $3M USDC in quarterly installments to the Mars Protocol Foundation over two years to fund the development and growth of the Mars...

Reading time: 7 mins 🕑 Likes: 7 ❤

Stargaze is a place where people feel welcomed, where they can find a community to belong to. A PFP that resonates with you, that you use as your own persona to represent who you are (or maybe just a cute cat). As a digital product, it has all the higher qualities of top projects on the NFT space. It’s fast, secure, and easy to use. This didn’t come out of one month of work. It came with years of reiterating on the product, listening to the community, implementing changes, integrating with other protocols. Not just on the tech side, but onboarding creators and onboarding users is also a big part of its success.
It is not an easy endeavor, and being the only NFT marketplace with significant volume on Cosmos eco is the testament to that. Many have tried, but Stargaze stayed.

I think people who are calling $1.5M too much are just looking at a narrow view of what the technicalities of migration are, which is NOT what is being offered here.
If you want to have an active community, which people will actually use the chain, and promote it organically, have fun and creativity, then voting YES to this proposal is the path to go.

ngl this is the part the bums me out quite a bit

Again I want to point out,

THESE MIGRATION COSTS ARE DIABOLICAL.

If I’m willing to do it for 10% to save the hub hundreds of thousands, would I be welcomed to do so?

I belive that we need to keep Stargaze in the Cosmos Ecosystem We already lost so many chains, and Cosmos Hub without Ecosystem - is the same as Ethereum without ERC-tokens and L2s The separatism and social-darwinism that Cosmos Labs propagandize is a wrong direction, because of which we have already lost a huge number of networks But in the same time, 1,5M - is so huge amount, that it’s cheaper to build new project POSTHUMAN validator will up the proposal in POSTHUMAN DAS - DAO to govern the POSTHUMAN validator: DAO DAO We will vote WEIGHTED on this proposal by the result of voting in POSTHUMAN DAS, as POSTHUMAN represents not my opinion, but the opinion of all our stakers, and if our stakers will have other opinion then my, POSTHUMAN will vote as our stakers want But with my own stake, I will vote YES in case of next changes: • Open tender to migrate Stargaze to Cosmos Hub (I totaly sure, that it’s possible to migrate Stargaze less than for 1,5M $, and our developers team ready to do the same result for less funds) @Ruwan is very cool person, and I totaly respect his wish to provide good payment for Stargaze developers, and in better times, with ATOM by 10 or…

Excerpt (1199 of 1474 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

1. The migration could be a net positive, but NOT at the current level of abstraction. More detail, more constraints, and stronger guarantees are required before this could be responsibly approved.

2. $1.5M is high for migration work the Stargaze suite is large, but: Most code is already written? Migration is mostly porting, rewriting plumbing, and re-deploying contracts Migration cost benchmarks from other chains do NOT support such cost?

3. about $Stars I’m not commenting, as I’m not staking, nor have big amounts of Stars

4. I don’t think this proposal has even the potential to be accepted… many details need to be more clear

Maybe a more detailed version of the costs + with vesting time with clear goals would help get more people supporting this ?

I’m using Stargaze on daily basis, and yes, it’s by far, the best NFT platform out there, I just wish the best for it, but if I see things from cosmos hub perspective, I would need things more clear to be voting yes on it.

ADDED: I have also to say, that this proposal is much better than the first one!! This is also a good sign that things can move into the right direction.

while the dao having to be rebuilt is unfortunate, It’s not like we don’t know the ATOM address of every STARGAZE address through bech32

At the very least it would be more wise also give collections migration into the hands of a creator for the entire collection too, even if they have to batch sign 400 transactions I feel.

Otherwise I feel Stargaze is conveniently leaving the explanations to the communities on why users are coming back b/c pastures are green again yet all of their NFTs are "gone”…yet a portion of us still have ours.

I’ve been here as a user

DARKCOIN → DASH
ENIGMA → SCRT

One suggestion that pops out to me is that you guys should sunset the name service. I don’t believe it’s worth migrating it, especially for that price point.

This is a clear yes from me.

We need apps and Stargaze is one of the best and most used in Cosmos. There is a rich history on Stargaze that is tied to Cosmos. If this deal doesn’t go through it’s a nail in the coffin for Cosmos culture and creativity.

$1.5M is a bargain. We wouldn’t be able to build this tech-wise or community-wise for that amount.

You really think we could build this for 300k? This isn’t just technical scope it’s porting over an entire ecosystem.

Everyone talking about the technical scope is forgetting what it takes to run a fully functional app.

The hub doesn’t have anything right now. Stargaze is one of the most used apps in Cosmos it will clearly benefit from it.

If you consider it’s an accumulated work of 4-5 years of curating and launching creators and collections, it’s a steal.

If Stargaze leaves, then what is lost?

Thanks for the comment. You’re correct that we want the ATOM community to value Stargaze for everything it has created over the last four years, not just the technical lift involved in a migration. How people value Stargaze will depend on their experience with NFTs and the communities they’re part of.

We currently have a team of eight working in various capacities. Stargaze would not have been able to build what it has without both the team and the communities that power it. We do not want to return to the community pool again, so this amount ensures Stargaze will be able to develop, maintain, and thrive for years to come. The proposal was intended to present a clear, topline number for a full ecosystem migration, loosely modeled after the Mars → Neutron approach. The deliverables are outlined through the migration of each major application to bring all activity onto the Hub.

This isn’t framed as a service deal. It’s a partnership, and the funding reflects the value of Stargaze as it exists today and its future alignment with the Hub.

https://forum.neutron.org/t/proposal-26-make-neutron-the-home-of-mars-protocol/233

Thank you for your comment. We also want the best for Stargaze and believe it’s a strong fit for the Hub. Stargaze currently has the fifth-highest revenue of all NFT marketplaces. You’re correct that we need more users and that there is friction in the current experience, and this is one of the main reasons for pursuing a migration. And something we consider an innovative idea. I’m confident with a successful migration, Staragze will be financially autonomous. Stargaze as an app doesn’t truly need its own chain; it became one because, at the time, there was no viable way for smart contracts to exist on the Hub. This proposal represents our final attempt to remain within Cosmos and continue serving the community. “Will Stargaze ask for the same funding from another chain?” The answer is no. Other chains already have mature and vibrant marketplaces and communities that exist there. Our goal with this proposal is to have the same on the Hub, and we are the best-positioned team to do that. It is a natural fit and alignment. We want the ATOM community to value Stargaze for everything it has created over the last four years, not just the technical lift involved in a migration. How…

Excerpt (1197 of 2229 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I respect your team and whichever way you decide to vote. Building a solid marketplace is not an easy task. There’s a reason only a few marketplaces rise to the top. See Zerks comment here.

If you want to attract new users, you need to give them something they want to do. An empty marketplace won’t help with that.

As I’ve mentioned in other replies, this isn’t just a “technical migration” or a simple service agreement. Someone might offer to move contracts for less, but where would those NFTs actually trade afterward?

Before proposing to handle the migration, any team would first need to rebuild the entire Stargaze stack on the Hub: marketplace, indexer, metadata services, custom APIs, IPFS cluster, Metabase, and all supporting infrastructure. Without that, there’s nothing for collections to migrate into.

That’s why this isn’t something that can realistically be outsourced cheaply, it requires the full application layer, not just contract work.

BM! As a builder, project owner on Stargaze (2+ years), collector, genesis minter and long-time cosmonaut, I fully support this direction. For me, aligning Stargaze with the Cosmos Hub is basically bringing Cosmos users and apps back home. My Cosmos story is simple: I joined the ecosystem because of ATOM, IBC and the CosmWasm vision . I moved to Stargaze because the Hub, as an implementation model, offered nothing beyond security and governance . Permissionless contracts changed a lot, but the Hub still has almost no real users. Stargaze does. Over the past years, Stargaze became a unique app-chain where people actually have fun. Nobody really talks about one key factor: distribution . Yes, there are ~3.8k collections, but behind them are strong players who have been building distribution since day one. What’s interesting: they don’t fight, they coordinate. Accumulation takes time, and this is exactly where Stargaze is far ahead of anything in Cosmos. Stargaze also attracted top-tier creators. Honestly, sometimes I think Cosmos artists > Cosmos builders , the quality is that high. In the past years, Stargaze became the real cultural hub of Cosmos simply…

Excerpt (1192 of 3053 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

We will always support the STARS token, but these funds cannot be used for buybacks or any market activity. They must be used for the migration itself. The goal of this proposal is to ensure the long-term stability of the Stargaze platform within Cosmos, which is what ultimately supports the long-term value and utility of STARS.

Liquidity, market access, and exposure are real issues for STARS and they are priorities for us, but this proposal is not a token intervention plan. I would not be opposed to a separate one, though. The migration strengthens the entire ecosystem around STARS, which is the most meaningful way to improve morale and long-term confidence.

As I’ve mentioned in other replies, this isn’t just a “technical migration” or a simple service agreement. Someone might offer to move contracts for less, but where would those NFTs actually trade afterward?

Before proposing to handle the migration, any team would first need to rebuild the entire Stargaze stack on the Hub: marketplace, indexer, metadata services, custom APIs, IPFS cluster, Metabase, and all supporting infrastructure. Without that, there’s nothing for collections to migrate into.

That’s why this isn’t something that can realistically be outsourced cheaply, it requires the full application layer, not just contract work.

First, the value to the Hub is tangible and immediate. The Hub receives a fully built marketplace, launchpad, name service, creator tools, 3,800 collections, and roughly 130,000 monthly NFT transactions. ATOM becomes the default minting and trading token across all future collections, which directly expands its utility.

Second, this is not a deal for the token and price does not represent the value of the products, the user base, or the importance of preserving Cosmos cultural assets. Ending inflation and giving STARS a stable home is part of making the ecosystem healthier long term.

Third, this proposal already includes milestone-based disbursements with clear deliverables.

This is not a precedent for bailouts. It is a consolidation of a Cosmos-native app onto the Hub to increase ATOM utility and retain the ecosystem’s largest cultural and creator communities. Stargaze already has the 5th highest revenue of NFT Marketpalces and that will increase with on a larger chain.

I think you are a very cool person too! As I mentioned in a few comments before, this is more than a technical migration. You would first need to create a fully featured marketplace. We also want the ATOM community to value Stargaze for everything it has created over the last four years, not just the technical lift involved in a migration.

We do not want to return to the community pool again, so this amount ensures Stargaze will be able to develop, maintain, and provide service for years to come.

As an Atom holder and creator of a collection that both trades in Atom and share’s thematic narratives. Stargaze moving to the hub makes a lot of sense. We all know that the Cosmos has massive potential with all it’s clever thingamajig’s and high tech whatdyamacallit’s. But if you wanna cook up a nice nutritious dish there should be some flavour too, and that’s what Stargaze has in abundance. With a little bit of watering and attention, I’m confident it would grow into something even more excellent and it’s fruits infuse the Cosmos with a vibrancy and colour that everyone would want a taste of.

After reading through the proposal I still don’t have a clear understanding of why funding is needed and how the funds in the community pool would be used. The Stargaze Marketplace functions sufficiently in it’s current state so why make any changes?

$1.5 million is an insanely high amount for building an NFT platform from scratch lmao. Stargaze is nowhere besides rock bottom, which is exactly why they’ve given up, publicly admitting their token will be a “culture/fun token”, aka completely worthless.

Gm. I’ve reviewed the proposal, and in general am supportive of such a thing. In terms of what the community pool could go towards, this is a great option, especially since the be will be around one million getting returned to the community pool from AA DAO shortly, and so this spend is roughly in line with that (i.e. won’t have to dig into the community pool so far). I think it’s worth noting that this is the second proposal, and that the cost is much, much cheaper than last time. To me, that signals that such an integration is really wanted by the Stargaze team, and that it likely makes sense. In general, I am in support. However, I don’t support the current milestone deliverables, which are: Milestone | Description | Amount (USDC) | 1 | Initial setup and technical planning | 400,000 | 2 | Launchpad and Studio migration | 200,000 | 3 | Marketplace migration | 200,000 | 4 | Name Service migration | 200,000 | 5 | NFT Collection migration | 500,000 | Total | | 1,500,000 | This is a 1.5m payment for various “migrations”. The truth is, migrations aren’t worth anything to the Hub. It’s the operation,…

Excerpt (1199 of 3497 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Expedition community collection and the Expedition validator by @lifeandcrypto_ in @cosmos and @StargazeZone , after speaking with members of Atom and Stargaze communities, as well as involved parties and opinion leaders, will vote “ Abstain ” on this proposal Proposal Pass If the proposal passes, Stargaze will become the first appchain in Hub history to migrate onto the Cosmos Hub. As seen in [PROPOSAL 1007][PASSED], CosmWasm was not part of @cosmoslabs_io strategy, but the proposal was still approved by the majority of validators who rely on the requests of their delegators and $ATOM holders It’s important to understand that if the current proposal passes, the migration of Stargaze will likewise be a community-driven choice and could set a precedent for the future development of retail ecosystems in Cosmos. If other retail projects follow Stargaze to the Hub, this could revive the sector from within Cosmos itself and help CosmosLabs achieve its B2B goals Atom Community Cosmos Labs is not actively commenting on or influencing the course of this proposal. This means that the presence of NFTs on the Hub lies entirely on the shoulders of the Atom community. The decision…

Excerpt (1197 of 6276 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This is exactly what I meant on my comment earlier @Ruwan.

I believe the numbers in this proposal are significantly inflated and not aligned with the actual work required for a technical migration. I raised similar concerns during the previous proposal, which at the time I still considered reasonable enough that a ~$1.5M acquisition could have been justified. However, the situation today is fundamentally different: • One of Stargaze’s founders has left, which raises questions about continuity and whether this proposal is intended to extract remaining value from the marketplace rather than strategically grow it. • NFT trading volumes have decreased, not increased, and the projections from the earlier proposal were not fulfilled. • The proposal provides claims and narratives, but no updated charts, KPIs, or transparent market data to support those claims. Before discussing numbers of this scale , the community needs verifiable metrics, not empty threats of “we will migrate elsewhere.” Most importantly: This proposal is not an acquisition. It is a migration. Paying $1.5M for a migration—without equity, without revenue share, without ownership—does not make sense from a Hub investment perspective. The numbers presented…

Excerpt (1196 of 3247 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

What I meant was that even with 1.5 million thrown at a new NFT marketplace, it doesn’t guarantee its success at all. It doesn’t mean users will come, come back, trade, and create any meaningful positive environment. Stargaze has a 3-4 year history with much brighter days. The difficulties Stargaze is facing aren’t unique to Stargaze; they’re a result we see everywhere else in the cosmos. All the chains are suffering terribly, including ATOM. Just a year ago, the sentiment wasn’t great, but the volume on Stargaze was five times higher. To be fair, it is the only other app I used with Osmosis for all this years. Cosmos needs an NFT marketplace. If you think the cosmos will have better days, then you expect new chains, new projects, and new applications to launch, and they’ll surely want to use NFTs for their communities. I can guarantee you that creating a new platform (perhaps cheaper), empty, without a single collection, without existant creators, will have a very hard time launching and catching up without having to rely on a lot of incentives (which most of the time end up being just fake engagement). Stargaze is in bad shape because the whole ecosystem is in bad shape and…

Excerpt (1198 of 1416 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Minting and issuance can happen on other chains, but the Hub should be the place where trading happens. You can batch the (mint) → (ibc to Hub) → trade → (ibc out of Hub) → send transactions into one tx through Skip:Go, for example.

In regards to this, I’d be much more supportive of the migrations if creators could choose where the issuance of our migration lands the collection. While I personally prefer opening all of IBC and letting holders list where they please. As long as the token can move about for other use cases I’d be a little less weary of things.

I’ve spent the last year or so building something that utilizes IBC enabled CEWTs from STARGAZE, but I need them to be able to move about the cabin to do so. I’d rather not see those efforts lost b/c the once IBC enabled collection is now just a community / fun token.

My fear mostly is the burn and re-issuance erasing the interoperability of the collection via IBC. The IBC interoperability is really what most of us are here for and believe in.

image219×210 3.61 KB

I see people publicly offering to do these migrations significantly cheaper, are these options being explored?

I like the change to the bonus structure based on fees, and NFT collection migration. That builds in a safety net for Cosmos Hub. While this is an improvement to the initial proposal, it does raises some concerns and questions: • With 8 people in the team, this means $10.2k a month per person (75k*12 + 85k from milestones divided by 8) to migrate the code over. Even for direct hires that’s a very high salary, and in this case Cosmos Hub doesn’t even own the product but just incentivizes migration. You could technically hire a couple of CW devs, build the same platform, incentivize the NFT collections to migrate over with money and have your own thing. • There is no quality assurance built in. Stargaze team has complete freedom and can move at their own pace, because they will get paid anyway. There’s no failsafe, so it’s purely based on trust. • NFT Volume has been declining, not just for Stargaze but the entire market, and will continue to do so unless there is a clear plan or use-case on how to improve that. There is a plan missing for that. How do we / the team, prevent that from happening and what are their goals? • Migrating Stargaze over sounds nice on paper,…

Excerpt (1199 of 2007 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

As a community member, this proposal genuinely feels like a win for everyone across the Cosmos ecosystem. Stargaze has been the cultural heartbeat of Cosmos for yearss, onboarding creators, empowering collectors, and giving every chain a place to express its identity. Bringing that energy directly to the Hub doesn’t just strengthen ATOM utility, it strengthens the entire community.

Thank you for your comments and engaging with the proposal. We appreciate the constructive tone and the openness to seeing Stargaze on the Hub as a win for both communities. Of course, we hope to gain your support. I recognize the give and take in the current market, and glad you also acknowledge the current proposal is much more reasonable and represents a 90% reduction from the previous ask. I’m confident we could make this a success and a win for both Cosmos and Stargaze communities. You mentioned that migrations themselves do not hold value for the Hub. In practice, the reason this conversation is even happening is because of the value represented by the applications, creators, collections, and users that would be joining the Hub. The traction on this thread, with some of the highest engagement on the forum in the past year with comments and views, shows Stargaze still carries meaningful cultural and community weight. The setup and planning phase will also be larger than expected. We are undertaking something that has never been done before, and the goal is to spark and grow activity through this migration. Additionally, this is not a standard integration like deploying an…

Excerpt (1199 of 2688 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

We need to change the payment from $USDC to $STARS. This will motivate the team not to screw everything up again.

NWV. The payments in this are absolutely wild.

If this goes through I will be unstaking and selling absolutely everything I have in the Cosmos.

To those here reading this:

Mark my words. Paying this much for this will be the final deathblow to $ATOM.

I don’t understand how we can be talking in USDC and not in vested-staked-ATOM (except for a reasonable % to pay for IT and normal salaries along the way).

First things first, I want to say that I’m in favor of bringing Stargaze and its collections to the Hub under Replicated Security. I’m hoping it increases more activity, more IBC volume, more fees long-term, which is good for everyone. HOWEVER $1.5 M in USDC is a non-starter . The Hub community is the one taking the risk here. If the migration underperforms or deadlines slip, we’re the ones left holding the bag. Paying in USDC removes all downside for the Stargaze team and gives them zero incentive to deliver fast or exceed expectations. I FIND THESE TERMS TO BE ACCEPTABLE: • Funding exclusively in STARS (or a STARS/ATOM mix) you eat your own cooking and stay aligned with your token holders. • Clawback clauses baked into the milestones: ``` • 100% refundable if any milestone is missed by >30 days • Pro-rata repayment if 6-month post-migration metrics (TVL, volume, active collections) are <50% of projections ``` Cap total funding at $500k equivalent (or lower; multiple teams have already offered to do it cheaper). Do this and the proposal has my Yes and quite possibly the Yes of many others. Keep the USDC demand and it’s a hard NO, and a lot of us will…

Excerpt (1197 of 1357 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Fully agree with every word.

Stargaze isn’t migrating because it’s thriving, it’s migrating because it’s dying. A successful chain doesn’t need the Hub to bail it out with $1.5 million USDC of our community pool money.

Paying in guaranteed, stable USDC while we take all the downside risk is the definition of a one-sided. If they truly believe this migration will revive Stargaze and benefit the Hub, they should be paid exclusively in STARS, that means, skin in the game, which is the same as every staker here.

just to reiterate, there are teams who have already offered to do the exact same work for $100k–$300k. This isn’t a negotiation; it feels like a cash-grab on a 2022 relic that most of the market has moved on from.

I really appreciate the work that @Ruwan has done compressing the most important parts of Shane’s original proposal into a simpler and more accessible proposal. IMO, this merge makes a ton of sense, the price is well thought out and appears to be agreeable both on the SG side and on the Cosmos Labs side, which is incredibly encouraging.

Stargaze leaving the Cosmos would be a genuine tragedy. The Cosmos Hub continuing on with no core application in 2025 is a bit ridiculous. It is also very easy to imagine synergies between Cosmos Lab’s institutional focus and a team that is masterful at NFTs on the Cosmos stack. While these haven’t been explored fully in this prop, I think assuming that they wouldn’t be (1) possible and (2) powerful for both parties would be an oversight.

Much respect to both teams - as a long time ATOM holder and Stargaze enthusiast, this prop will certainly get my “YES“ vote.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

Let’s be real: Stargaze’s app-chain “model no longer making economic sense” is code for “it’s failing.” If the product is “one of the most used in Cosmos,” why the bailout? 3,800 collections sound big, but 90%+ are dead (floors near zero, no trades). 130K monthly txns is ~4,300/day, that’s nothing more than a rounding error for the Hub, and most are low-value NFT mints, not fee-generators.

The “fully built” marketplace, launchpad, and tools are nice, but the Hub already has CosmWasm (v25 upgrades enable it) and Token Factory coming Q4, we can build our own for pennies compared to $1.5M. “Cosmos’ largest cultural community” is a tiny pond (~5K active users max) in a niche that’s dead in 2025. And “ATOM becoming the default minting and trading token” is meaningless without exclusivity; your own post says you can’t guarantee it, so volume leaks multi-chain anyway.

The Hub gains scraps via IBC fees, while you handle “maintenance” but get no-risk USDC? That’s not “alignment” that’s us subsidizing a 2022 relic with zero downside for you.

I am in general in favor of Stargaze moving to the the Hub.
However, I like Mag’s suggestion and numbers way better, if you are not willing to accept that third of the payment comes from the fees generated by NFT trading on the Hub - it tells me you don’t believe it is likely to happen (or?).
Since funds are to be paid from the CP - we as community have the right to know how exactly the money will be spent. You mentioned a team of 8 people - could you break down their roles and how much each of them will get from the requested amount and for which amount of work?

Montagu from Citadel One here,

Disclaimer: Citadel One is a validator on both the Cosmos Hub and Stargaze.

→ The ask: $1.5M

→ In return, $ATOM becomes the default minting & trading activity

I respect the Stargaze team and I’m a big fan of the products they built and having them on the Hub makes sense but not under these conditions.

If the proposal moves on-chain, Citadel One will vote No. Our reasoning: we don’t see a significant upside for the Hub, especially with ATOM at an all-time low and a Hub roadmap that is not DeFi-focused, with the current terms:

→ The total of the ask is marked for migration and setup costs.

→ Absence of any vesting & unlocks tied to growth/ performance KPIs

→ No exclusivity & long-term commitment from Stargaze to the Hub

Let me reiterate, I hate everything about this.

Hello, this is Joe K., aka cortlandt, the creator of Bad Kids. I’m writing this to show my support for the proposal, but also to try to reach some of the undecided or no voters. Stargaze is asking for a lot of money, yes. Is it fair? I don’t know. It’s a mature marketplace with an active community. I don’t think 1.5 million is excessive. I’m seeing people talk about how Stargaze’s revenue is bad, and this doesn’t make financial sense. I’m sure there’s some truth there, but this sort of thing shouldn’t be looked at strictly as a business decision. A bank brings in way more money that a theater. But I wouldn’t want to live in a city with 99 banks and no theaters. Right now we’re living in a city of banks. There’s value in having a marketplace for digital goods right on the Hub. Yeah, it’s mostly community-based NFT collections right now, but having Stargaze on the hub will expand the capabilities at the core of Cosmos. It’s future-proofing for the day when these digital goods might include game items or property deeds. But let’s focus on what Stargaze already does in its current form: it’s a reliable platform that allows anyone to launch an NFT collection easily and cheaply.…

Excerpt (1199 of 2849 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Tricky from Cosmos Spaces here. First off, I want to thank you Ruwan for pushing this discussion forward and trying to find a structure that works for both sides. I know you are holding a lot of pressure on the Stargaze side and still doing your best to make something workable for the Hub. With that said, I think the structure you are proposing is going to get a clear NO vote from a large portion of stakeholders. Like have said, migrations by themselves are not worth very much, especially with the current state Stargaze is in. The way this is written puts most of the value on moving over existing products without any accountability or guarantees that the team will continue driving demand or improving the product after the move. The team still even keeps a lot of potential value by keeping the STARS token alive instead of just killing it like it should. A structure closer to @Mag ’s suggestion makes much more sense. It ties payments to the delivery of real value instead of putting all the risk on the Hub upfront. The team is already funded for a full year of maintenance work, which will naturally cover a lot of the migration costs. That makes smaller bonuses for actually…

Excerpt (1194 of 4397 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I would vote YES if the proposal follows the same structure as Mag’s one, includes a budget of 35k per month for one year of maintenance, and implements a clawback mechanism if the objectives are not met.

What about:

1. Full migration of Marketplace, Launchpad & Studio: $150k, 2/3 in $ATOM upon completion 1/3 USDC up front
2. Migration of top 10 collections within 3 months of item 1: $5k, each in $ATOM
3. Innovation sprint that is aligned with the strategic objectives laid out in the Cosmoverse 25 and project/product managed by the Hub: $150k USDC, 2/3 milestone based distribution
4. Drop the name service migration for now, reassess after innovation sprint

The total outlay is much reduced from the ask, $350k vs $1.5m. Ideally the innovation sprint leads to new growth and revenue opportunities, allows the Hub to advance strategic priorities and leverages a technical team that has proven they can deliver. If new opportunities materialize the team can keep up the velocity.

The team is great. Yes, SG was anchored to NFTs and thus subject to the hype cycle around it. This means that the outcome we are seeing, an NFT-dedicated app chain was always going to be down bad eventually.

This is a wonderful and thoughtful response - nothing short of what I’d expect from the baddest of the bad

This x10000000000000000

Very much agree with all you said here.

I see this is on chain already and don’t know why…

Lots of feedback unanswered so far.

The proposal is now on-chain for voting.

We incorporated community and Mag’s feedback into the proposal by making it less milestone-based and spreading payments out over a full year, along with introducing an activity-based incentive bonus. We also added more information about future growth and development.

Ruwan, Thanks for the continued dialogue, but putting this on-chain while so many fundamental questions remain unanswered is premature and feels like trying to force it through before the community can properly vet it. The “may pause future payments” clause is not a clawback , it’s just “we can stop paying you more.” You still keep every USDC already disbursed, even if the migration completely flops or NFTs stay dead. That’s not protection for the Hub , that’s us taking 100% of the downside risk while you get guaranteed, stable money. A few of the big ones still unanswered: • Why USDC only and not (or mostly) STARS? If you believe in the future value, take the risk with your own token. • Real clawbacks: full refund of disbursed funds if milestones are missed or KPIs not hit (not just pausing future payments). • Hard exclusivity or minimum volume commitments routed to the Hub, otherwise we’re paying $1.375 M for a chain that can (and will) keep leaking activity multi-chain . • Why $1.375 M when multiple teams have publicly offered to do the exact same work for $100–$300 k? Putting this on-chain before these are addressed just hardens the No votes. Pull it back,…

Excerpt (1198 of 1308 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

In my view, this proposal was pushed on-chain far too quickly, without genuinely taking the Hub community’s feedback into account. The requested amount is extremely high, there is no clawback mechanism, and the overall funding plan doesn’t seem solid to me.

I usually keep a close eye on what happens in the ATOM ecosystem, and this whole approach gives me the impression of a deliberate value extraction attempt by the Stargaze team. I truly hope I’m wrong, because I am in favor of the acquisition, just not under these conditions.

Given the current wording and the rushed decision-making, I’m worried that a rejection of the proposal will trigger yet another drama (even though a rejection would make perfect sense to me). The team should have made a much stronger effort to align with the Hub, instead of trying to force the Hub community to align with Stargaze.

I personally voted NO , and I think others will consider NWV, which is understandable. At the same time, I genuinely want to see Stargaze join the Hub, but if this proposal passes, it will likely happen in a climate of uncertainty.

I think i agree with comrade Guinch here. I support the migration in general but community concerns are not addressed and legitimate questions about the amount of money are kinda ignored.

Hi Abaddon, thank you for continuing to engage in the discussion. I understand why it might feel premature, but at some point, we needed to move from forum debate to an on-chain stage so the broader community could weigh in. Over the past six months, there have been four separate proposals on the Hub forum regarding a Stargaze migration, two from the team and two from the community, and we have adjusted the proposal each time based on the feedback we received. On protection for funds: this is exactly why a multisig with milestone-based disbursements is included. The community has also been clear that a token deal involving STARS should not be bundled with the migration itself, and we adapted the proposal accordingly. Regarding volume guarantees and interoperability: we cannot ethically commit to minimum trading volumes or flows. As stated in the proposal, we believe multichain activity strengthens, not weakens, the Hub by increasing visibility and IBC-driven flows. It aligns with the core Cosmos principles of sovereignty and interoperability. As for the idea that “other teams can do this for less,” none of those teams have built Stargaze’s infrastructure or applications,…

Excerpt (1197 of 1660 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Strongly against this proposal. Expenses should be cut by ten times. Stargaze needs Cosmos hub more than Cosmos hub needs Stargaze

MisterLoops: About your “exclusivity to the Hub” point, I tend to disagree, looping on the same users is not the way to go IMO. If managed well, a multichain activity with volume = fees collected on other chains that could be reinvested straight into ATOM and eyes from outside the Cosmos on OG collections… I personally only see benefits of a successful multichain Stargaze. Of course it must be complemented with marketing. If the Hub hosted the only multichain NFT marketplace that leverages IBC (with Eureka, ETH and soon SOL are connected) to abstract crosschain transactions, redirect fees to the Hub and put the UX first with the easiest onboarding possible, it’s a win-win IMO. About your “exclusivity to the Hub” point, I tend to disagree, looping on the same users is not the way to go IMO. If managed well, a multichain activity with volume = fees collected on other chains that could be reinvested straight into ATOM and eyes from outside the Cosmos on OG collections… I personally only see benefits of a successful multichain Stargaze. Of course it must be complemented with marketing. If the Hub hosted the only multichain NFT marketplace that leverages IBC (with Eureka, ETH…

Excerpt (1199 of 1368 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Ruwan, Thanks for responding, but I need to be direct because the framing here still misses the core issue: moving to on-chain before addressing material economic and governance risks is not “progress,” it’s bypassing due diligence. The “milestone + multisig + pause future payments” is not a clawback. It’s just “we can stop paying you more.” You still keep every USDC already disbursed, even if the migration flops or NFTs stay dead. That’s not protection for the Hub, that’s us taking 100% of the downside while you get guaranteed, stable money. “The community doesn’t want STARS bundled” is the opposite of what most of us are saying. If you truly believe this migration will succeed and revive Stargaze, take the majority (or all) of the funding in STARS. Refusing to do so sends the message that even you don’t have confidence in your own token’s future. It’s now seen as a “Culture/Fun token” what exactly does that mean? “Ethically cannot commit to minimum volumes” Nobody is asking you to guarantee outcomes. We’re asking for contractual exclusivity or minimum routing requirements so the Hub doesn’t pay $1.375M for a chain that keeps bleeding activity to other networks, and…

Excerpt (1198 of 1501 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I don’t think 300K is even worth it for the SG team to migrate this. would an indipendent team do that in 300K? I doubt that.

What alternatives do they have? Who’s gonna pay them a dime to migrate?

New Proposal is alive in POSTHUMAN DAS

How POSTHUMAN needs to vote on Proposal #1017 in Cosmos? (Results will be taken before execution of this prop)

DAO DAO

Create a DAO to manage your community, protocol, or entire blockchain in just a few clicks. We support multisig, token-based, and NFT-based DAOs that can be as simple or complex as you want. Set up SubDAOs, manage interchain assets, and interact with...

No alternatives for them. Plenty of NFT marketplaces on every chain.

POSTHUMAN will weighted vote on Proposal #1017 on 26th of November at 15:00 (4 hours before the end of voting) using results of voting on proposal in POSTHUMAN DAS

Just noting that the prop which has gone on chain has the following amendments compared to the original forum post: • Revised payment structure based on feedback from @Mag • Ask changed from 1.5 million based on milestone delivery to 1.375 million based on milestone delivery + up to 125,000 in potential bonus incentives • More information on development and growth focuses for 2026/2027 On development and growth: A common concern is that the Stargaze team may not be committed to further development. I’d say this is a blindspot from the team when first crafting the proposal - we are aware of our own commitment to the ecosystem after 4 years of shipping product and building the best community in Cosmos, but of course we can’t assume everyone has the same trust or relationship with us. Skepticism is fair. To that end, the prop payment structure was amended to be similar to Mag’s proposal. This prop outlines a vision of consolidation, continued development and growing Cosmos. The Hub gets not just a mature product but also a committed team. We had fruitful conversations in the spring about not just migrating Stargaze, but also new products and features we would be…

Excerpt (1198 of 3035 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Brady, Appreciate you laying out the three changes, but the “lowered total ask” point really needs clarification because the numbers don’t match that claim from the Hub’s perspective. Right now, both the forum post and the on-chain prop clearly state: • $1.375M in USDC via milestones / quarterly disbursements • $125k in ATOM as an “activity incentive bonus” That’s $1.5M total coming out of the community pool if everything is paid. Renaming $125k as a “bonus” or “incentive” doesn’t change the economic reality for ATOM holders, it’s still part of the cost. So when you say the on-chain prop has a “lowered total ask compared to the original forum post,” can you be explicit about what you’re comparing? • If you mean relative to the $16M acquisition draft from earlier this year, sure, that’s obviously lower, but that’s a completely different proposal and time. • If you mean relative to the current migration forum draft, the topline is still $1.5M, just split into $1.375M “funding” + $125k “bonus.” The community pool doesn’t care about that distinction; the total outflow is the same. From a governance and messaging standpoint, calling this a “lowered total ask” is…

Excerpt (1197 of 2180 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hey Abaddon,

I can see how my wording was confusing re:ask total - to me there is separation between the variable incentives bucket and the fixed bucket. Point taken that the community may not care about the distinction, though I do encourage everyone to read the onchain prop closely, including breakdown on milestones and tranche deliveries. I’ll edit my prior comment to clarify.

For the other issues you’ve raised, I believe they have been answered previously in this thread.

I’m simply commenting as a Stargaze team member to 1) voice my commitment and vouch for the team’s credibility and 2) note that we incorporated feedback and in particular most of Mag’s suggestions.

Brady, Appreciate you clarifying the wording on the ask and editing the earlier comment. From the Hub side though, the distinction you’re drawing between a “fixed” bucket and a “variable incentives” bucket doesn’t really change the economic reality: the community pool’s maximum exposure is still 1.5M (1.375M + 125k). Whether that 125k is framed as “bonus,” “incentive,” or “variable,” it’s still part of the potential bill. So I’m glad you acknowledged that the wording was confusing, because that’s exactly how it landed for a lot of us. On the “other issues have been answered previously” point, this is where I disagree. They’ve been addressed, but not resolved in a way that changes the risk/reward profile for ATOM holders. To be concrete: • Clawbacks: We still only have the ability to stop future payments. There is no mechanism to return already-disbursed funds if milestones/KPIs aren’t met. That means the Hub still eats 100% of the downside on all prior tranches. • Denomination / alignment: Payment remains entirely in USDC + ATOM bonus. There is no STARS-denominated component, which would be the clearest way to show you’re taking the same economic risk you’re asking…

Excerpt (1196 of 2385 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

The message from @mag highlights once again why strong leadership from Cosmos Labs is essential when negotiating financial agreements or broader business relationships. When framed as Magnus presented it, the proposal becomes significantly more compelling. In that perspective, the acquisition concerns the team rather than the migration itself, which creates a strategic alignment that can be meaningful. That said, we believe additional structure must be added to make the relationship both viable and durable. From our standpoint at Govmos, any integration of a core team should be rooted in Cosmos SDK development. Within that frame, it would make sense for the Stargaze team, whose expertise in NFTs is recognized across the ecosystem, to take responsibility for the native x/nft module, including its maintenance and potential evolution. This would, however, expand the scope well beyond the initial migration proposal, which is precisely what is needed to make it workable. Our recommendation Cosmos Labs and the Stargaze team should begin private negotiations to define a clear Cosmos SDK based agreement. The Stargaze team would be tasked with maintaining and enhancing the x/nft…

Excerpt (1195 of 3157 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I strongly agree with Govmos, as well as how it was framed. This is much closer to what many of us have been asking for: treat this as a team acquisition + long-term SDK mandate handled by ICF / Cosmos Labs, not a 1.5M “all-in” migration bill paid almost entirely by the Hub’s community pool. The idea that Stargaze would own and maintain x/nft as part of core Cosmos SDK work is exactly the kind of strategic alignment that actually justifies serious money. Structurally, the Govmos outline fixes several of the biggest issues: • The Hub CP pays a clearly scoped migration budget + performance-based upside, rather than indefinite USDC runway. • ICF / Cosmos Labs covers recurring team costs, where that kind of spending belongs. • It avoids setting the precedent that “move your app to Gaia = drain the Hub CP,” while still leaving room to reward real performance. I’d still like to see stronger downside protections (true clawback / refund mechanics) and more explicit economic alignment. But directionally, this is the first structure that actually addresses the “who takes the risk vs who gets the runway” problem instead of hand-waving it. If a revised version of this deal…

Excerpt (1197 of 1380 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Since my questions were ignored I will be voting NO.
Mag’s suggestion is way better than what is currently on chain.

This detail of static token supply for $STARS should have greater mention in the proposal. Much of that activity is offchain, so attestations or other citations are economically relevant.

This is really good proposal. I will be voting yes, I encourage others to do so as well.

Did you register an account 2 hours ago just to encourage others to vote YES?

Given that the governance chose to go with the permissionless CosmWasm earlier and the fact that the proposal now includes team acquisition I don’t see it as anything but positive. This is literally one of the most knowledgeable CosmWasm teams out there. They’ve shown their ability to deliver and were never entangled in major fund misspending drama. The product contain multiple existing solutions for future token value accrual. There’s contract infrastructure for sharing minting proceeds with the community pool. Additionally, there is a way to price assets in alternative denominations and the buy-back mechanism that could create positive pressure for $ATOM Permissionless Stargaze on Hub in itself is already a completely different product on its own. There will be better consolidation, marketing and resources backing the product as well. Comparing to the past token price action is irrelevant. NFTs and tokens are one of the most underdeveloped areas with huge room for innovation. You get users by being the first or being the best. Both requires doing experimentation, iteration and improvement on existing solutions. This is one of the narratives that we can try ourselves in.…

Excerpt (1196 of 1595 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Nothing goes past you, detective

Classic ATOM. I have bought into ATOM quite a while ago, been holding probably much much longer than many people here, staking with different validators. I never liked to engage with broader community despite my large stake. Recently, during casual discussion one of the validators encouraged me to speak up and voice my opinion specifically for this proposal because I mentioned to him I think it should pass and I believe it IS GOOD for Cosmos at large. Only to be met with veiled hostility, my comments hidden. Some people can’t help themselves. I should have known better to keep quiet like for the past years.

Abaddon, I’m curious how you envision a STARS-denominated component?
As far as I’m aware, the Hub CP doesn’t at this moment hold any STARS.
Are you suggesting the Hub Community Pool acquire STARS tokens on the market and pay them out to the Stargaze team?

Stargaze had a productive meeting with Cosmos Labs today to outline future growth plans for both Stargaze and the Cosmos Hub. RWA expansion on the Cosmos Hub: Stargaze has always believed NFTs are more than JPEGs. Much of the industry’s next wave of growth is expected to come from increasing RWA adoption. Real estate NFTs have grown 32 percent year over year, and phygital collectibles like trading cards are also gaining momentum. With Cosmos Labs focused on institutional adoption, Stargaze is well-positioned to build client-specific RWA products. After collaborating with Noble to create an RWA minter, Stargaze will expand on that foundation with Cosmos Labs’ support to develop additional RWA offerings on the Cosmos Hub. The most challenging aspects of RWA development are sourcing business relationships and maintaining legal compliance. With Cosmos Labs assisting in both partnership sourcing and compliance, Stargaze will be able to deliver functional products within two quarters of a signed deal. Growth outside the crypto bubble: Stargaze will expand its social media strategy beyond X, Discord, and Web3-focused channels to place more emphasis on platforms with broader…

Excerpt (1195 of 2018 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Essentially, this proposal is about recruiting the Stargaze team. The asking price was reduced tenfold from the initial amount and fixed in USD, which I consider important. Therefore, I unequivocally support this proposal.

So, can we expect a rewritten version of the proposal and for the revised version to be submitted for an on-chain vote?

In addition, I would recommend the following adjustments:

• Add a clawback mechanism for each delivered feature in the “clarity on funding” section.
• Reduce the overall ask to 1M$ so that both the proposing party and the community can find common ground.
• Rework on the multisig members, it seems to be 90% Stargaze aligned members

This expands on points already included in the proposal, and the main forum post has been updated accordingly. The current on-chain proposal also links to the full discussion/post.

Question on funding denomination & timeline for ATOM price changes

The proposal is denominated in USDC, however Stargaze would be receiving ATOM. It is written that if the value of ATOM rises, any excess beyond the approved USDC amount will be returned.

Is there a defined timeframe or settlement point for this pricing calculation?

For example:

• Is the ATOM → USDC value assessed at the moment of each payout?

• Or is there a set evaluation date (e.g. after migration completion)?

• What happens if ATOM appreciates significantly 1–3 years after distribution – is that still considered “excess” to be returned, or is the clause only intended for short-term volatility?

Clarity on the exact timeline and accounting method for this mechanism would be helpful for assessing risk and fairness to the Cosmos Hub community pool.

After further reflection, we have decided to cast a YES vote on this proposal. While we continue to believe that a more balanced agreement could have been achieved, rejecting the proposal at this stage may create greater harm than moving forward. The ecosystem is already under significant pressure, and blocking a constructive initiative risks undermining both community trust and the long term trajectory of the project.

Our support does not change our broader recommendations. We still encourage the team to consider, once the one-year commitment validated by this proposal reaches its term, entering discussions with Cosmos Labs regarding a deeper integration focused on maintaining and evolving the x/nft module. Such an approach would place the work of the Stargaze team within a clear, durable and strategically aligned framework that benefits the entire ecosystem.

In short, we support the proposal today to avoid destabilizing the situation, and we encourage all parties to explore a path that ensures long term financial sustainability and technical alignment after this initial one year period concludes.

still overpriced too much..
are u guys fine to get market salaries, not so high?
bs..

After more digging and long talks with other validators I am now convinced this vote should NOT pass. I have also followed discussions on X/twitter including justification from Citadel One (I don’t stake with them). This proposal looks good at face value but once you start digging, it seems the team wants to cash in and bounce. It was pointed out to me that the dev jumped ship already which puts into question future support: https://fxtwitter.com/shan3v/status/1963700915371970928

I voted because I believe Stargaze has huge potential.
There have been many projects that didn’t deliver real value, but with the right funding and proper applications, Stargaze can go from strength to strength.

I had the pleasure of meeting Joe from Bad Kids and seeing all the creative NFTs but simply moving NFTs around isn’t the answer. What I want to see is Stargaze creating real utility for NFTs in the future from real-world assets to social media integration.

I’d also love to see other projects in the Cosmos ecosystem collaborate with talented illustrators like @frutopia, whose artwork and design skills are incredible. Stargaze can become a true creative hub the hub for innovation and artistry. So its been as shit show for Alts was speaking to other guys in other systems same story … we need to build on what we have and get the cross chain of art and creative thinking on…. A sold Yes …. lets go

Based on proposal in POSTHUMAN DAS:

How POSTHUMAN needs to vote on Proposal #1017 in Cosmos?

DAO DAO

Create a DAO to manage your community, protocol, or entire blockchain in just a few clicks. We support multisig, token-based, and NFT-based DAOs that can be as simple or complex as you want. Set up SubDAOs, manage interchain assets, and interact with...

POSTHUMAN validator will weighted vote on Prop #1017 in Cosmos with next %:
YES - 60.66
NO - 27.8
No With Veto - 11.13
Abstain - 0.41

Link on weighted vote:

Mintscan

Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks.

Thanks for playing. Tbh I didn’t talk to no validator nor did I ever hold any atom, I was betting on this passing on polymarket

If I am honest, as impartial figure after learning about your guys’ stuff here, you are paying $1.5M for something that clears what, 50k in monthly VOLUME? Lmao, only in crypto. But hey, who am I to judge, have fund and like I said, thanks for playing.

Only ATOM would refuse to fund new developers while giving a million plus to a dead project whose token went to 0. Most mismanaged project in history. Someone should write a book about this catastrophic failure. Anyone still holding this token must want to be poor.

@Ruwan only saw a post on X, but nothing here where most discussion took place.

How much longer till you have your migration plan ready to present?

Would have thought it’d take like a day, since you had all the time..

Migration Update

We’re building Stargaze 2.0 for the Cosmos Hub.

What’s coming:
• Revamp of the Stargaze experience
• More ways to launch your collection (including Light Minter for smaller drops)
• Upgraded NFT contracts for Cosmos Hub
• Stargaze Names reimagined

Where we’re at:
• Infrastructure: New indexer in development, deployment pipelines being finalized. Private Cosmos testnet starting next week
• Contracts: Migration contracts in final review
• Frontend: New UI in active development, be ready!

Migration testing throughout the month of February.

Late February target: Live on the Hub.

Community:
• Arrival Event campaign is live to get featured on the Hub
• Cosmos Awards ceremony later this week
• Edge cases from ICS721 collections have been contacted to make the transition as smooth as possible
• Ongoing creator support on Discord for any questions about the migration
• STARS Community Pool restructure

As a reminder, users do not need to take any immediate action for the migration (except for DAOs treasury) - the claiming process will be detailed closer to launch.

Keep an eye on X for new updates!