[DRAFT PROPOSAL] Cosmos Resurrection Committee - Agressive Marketing campaign
Cosmos Resurrection Committee (CRC) UPD: Friends! Thank you for your feedback, we will update proposal, will add more details about marketing campaign, also we will add more information about supporting tooling and services to create additinal utility for ATOM, also we will add plans to update tokenomics, and of course we will clearify moment with delegations to validators! After it, a new draft proposal will be created on forum, to discuss it, and maybe to update it, or to accept to publish it. For now, this topic can be closed, as we get enough feedback, and now we know how to make this proposal better! Thank you for constructive feedback! More detaild with all screenshots (and constantly updated version is here: Notion The AI workspace that works for you. | Notion A tool that connects everyday work into one space. It gives you and your teams AI tools—search, writing, note-taking—inside an all-in-one, flexible workspace. Cosmos is dead… And we urgently need to take actions to resurrect it! For this purpose, we are creating the Cosmos Resurrection Committee Introduction Everyone knows that Cosmos has the best technology,…
Excerpt (1194 of 18079 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
No, thanks.
If ICL is to do marketing - they should just hire professionals for their marketing department. Not being a marketing professional, people like you can do more harm than good to the public image of Cosmos.
Grant system is already scheduled as AAADAO, which will be led by ICL, so it seems you just want to frontrun it and gain some power before it happens by including yourself into your version of it.
Also, what’s with bribing of validators with “1 million ATOMs will be delegated to validators who vote in favor of allocating 2 million ATOMs for the CRC”?
Not to mention that you will be creating more sell pressure for ATOM by funding proposals with questionable outcomes.
I don’t think Cosmos needs aggressive marketing right now. We can spend millions on campaigns, but it won’t change anything if the Hub itself doesn’t showcase real applications, real products, and visible innovation.
What the ecosystem truly needs is:
- More products built directly on the Hub, creating organic demand for ATOM.
- Proactive builders, supported through a clear, efficient, and responsive process.
- An engaged community that naturally amplifies progress because there’s something tangible to talk about.
- A more active and effective ICF + CL, providing coherent vision and real FAST support to high-potential initiatives.
Once the economic activity is there, new modules, dApps, interchain integrations, real use cases, the marketing happens on its own. Builders, users, and investors become the ecosystem’s best promoters.
You don’t fix a traction problem with ads.
You fix it with products.
I oppose this proposal.
-
If marketing is needed, it should be done by professional teams.
I’ve watched some of your videos — they look amateur and careless.
-
“1 million ATOMs will be delegated to validators who vote in favor of allocating 2 million ATOMs for the CRC. All rewards will be redelegated to validators to increase the CRC’s Voting Power.”
I am strongly against this.
This is essentially bribing validators, and such behavior should never appear in a governance proposal.
We can debate whether the strategic direction taken by Cosmos Labs is the right one, but at the very least they’re making an effort to bring real users, real products, and real revenue streams into the Hub. That’s ultimately what strengthens an ecosystem over time. And what will help the price of Atom.
By contrast, the type of marketing suggested here doesn’t create any lasting value. It might draw in a wave of short-term speculators (if it draws anyone at all) but it won’t attract genuine customers, real projects, or meaningful activity that benefits the Hub in a sustainable way. Without those fundamentals, no amount of hype will move the ecosystem forward.
Similar position here.
None of the proposed actions is likely to have the intended effects because as pointed out above, marketing can’t be improvised and should be conducted by specialists within a comprehensive strategy.
Multiple independent initiatives will end up blurring the overall communication and harming each other.
The quid pro quo offer is a nice touch.
Easy No with Veto.
Bribe / grift proposal.
Instant no with VETO. Cosmos is quite alive thank you, hard pass on your arbitrary committee.
Another “masterful” proposal from the Posthuman validator. Let’s try to break down what it actually means. • The entire proposal reads like something written by a child. It contains no clearly defined strategy, only accusations and a highly questionable plan that is simply not viable. There is no value in such advertising — it will not make users buy $ATOM. For anyone to buy anything, there must first be a real product, not an abstract idea that people in the crypto space may or may not agree with. Your proposal does not mention products at all. • Your financial competence is questionable. The last time you requested money for your private event, we already discovered that you had issues with basic math (incorrect conversions and expense calculations). Since then, you have not provided any receipts to support your claims, and you turned the people who wrote to you privately at your request into a circus show about anonymity. Given all of this, should the community truly believe that you are competent in managing funds? I believe the answer is no. • The last time you asked for money, you also stated that if you did not receive it, you would leave Cosmos and move to other…
Excerpt (1199 of 3451 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
It should go without saying, but we do not support this proposal. The community pool should not be used for untargeted, wasteful marketing spends that bleed ATOM out to small content creators several thousands of dollars at a time. The same value could fund far more impactful, targeted marketing spends for potentially years with professional marketing firms. It could even get ATOM a superbowl ad slot (not saying we should use the funds for this, but it gives you an idea of the scale of the ask here). The community pool being difficult to access is a feature, not a bug. The community is justified in looking at spends like this with caution and suspicion. We’ve seen too much value leakage from the Community pool as it is. Some things I do think would be interesting to see from the CP are: • Yield generation: Use the CP to earn yield, which can be used to diversify CP holdings and remove ATOM from active circulation via buybacks or DeFi fees. • Delegation matching for enterprise customers of the stack that choose to buy ATOM and create their own validators • Any other initiatives that help us onboard enterprises to Cosmos. All of these have the potential to drive…
Excerpt (1197 of 2306 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Stakecito does NOT endorse this proposal and did not approve being listed here. We have contacted the author and requested removal.
Clown proposal. NWV.
When if not now? Do you want to see $ATOM by 2, then by 1,5m then by 1 ?
I romoved StakeCito from the list
As you can see, nothing help
To attract real users, you need good price
You will never attract nobody with constantly falling down in price ATOM
We have a lot of products, but nobody nows about them
Without marketing we will only lose users
Price of ATOM is constantly going down, real projects leave the Cosmos, if we will not spend funds on Marketing - we will lose Cosmos
Sorry, but I don’t think that Cosmos Labs can do something good for Cosmos
We understand why projects leave, and it’s not the projects’ fault Cosmos Labs is guilty for the exodus of projects from the Cosmos Ecosystem Over the course of its first year of existence, speaking on behalf of Cosmos, Cosmos Labs told a ton of projects that we now have social-darwinism, and the strongest will survive, and that other projects will receive no support from Cosmos Not only is this all nonsense, coz those who unite best will survive, as mutual aid is the most important factor in evolution. And so we see how weak humans, uniting with horses and dogs, have wiped out the strong mammoths from the evolutionary race The most important point is that Cosmos Labs is not the entire Cosmos Starting with the fact that Cosmos Labs’ Voting Power is definitely less than Cosmostation, continuing with the fact that ICF failed to prevent the passage of a proposal about the community’s lack of trust in ICF After this, ICF allocated 20 million from its funds and handed it over to Skip Protocol (which became Cosmos Labs) This raises two important points: • If the community doesn’t trust ICF, then why do we trust Cosmos Labs (an ICF protégé)? Cosmos Labs is the same…
Excerpt (1197 of 6332 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Everstake will not be supporting this proposal. We have never granted any consent to be included in the proposed Committee, and we do not wish to be associated with the structure, messaging, or direction outlined here. Please remove Everstake from the list immediately.
I’m hearing these clowns invited a bunch of validators to a Telegram chat for this, then went ahead and assumed they were on board with this idiocy just because they joined the chat. Can you confirm?
Already done, but without your support we will not resurrect Cosmos
We will lose everything
You will see ATOM by 2, after by 1,5, after by 1…
I have read some retarded things in my day, but god DAMN this wins.
NWV - absolutely useless waste of the CP money which will have no impact
You failed with educational content and now you want to try yourself at marketing, with CP money of course. Your examples of advertising content are cringe. Bribing voters is complete nonsense.
This just further radicalized me to want to burn the community pool. No. lol
No, it would be a mistake ! Community just has to be very carefull with CP spending. No more.
Given the early feedback from community members and several validator teams, we strongly encourage you to withdraw this proposal. On behalf of the Govmos contributors and the PRO Delegators validator, we cannot support it as well.
That said, we appreciate that you chose to present the idea on the forum before taking it on-chain. Even when a proposal receives significant criticism and is ultimately abandoned, it highlights the importance of this space as a first filter for assessing what is viable and what is not. It also reinforces the need for a clearer governance framework to formalize these expectations and processes.
If you are interested, we would be glad to see you participate in that broader effort.
We plan to proceed with this proposal after passing the one we currently draft on the Validator Operation Agreement, so stay tuned in the forum.
After further consideration, we will be recommending that the ICF remove Posthuman validator from the upcoming iteration of the ICF delegation program.
Bribery of validators amounts to a usurpation of governance that should be taken seriously to ensure that no situation like the outcome of proposal 69 occurs again. Foundation delegations should not accrue to validators who act in their own self-interest or attempt to exert undue control over governance outcomes. Foundation delegations are a privilege, not a right.
As of today, three validators technically qualify for the upcoming program but will be removed for discretionary reasons:
- Skip: Removed for misrepresentation in their validator moniker
- Kiln (legacy - please redelegate): Removed at the validator’s request
- POSTHUMAN
StakeDrop: Removed for validator bribery
We will continue to monitor validator activity for cases that warrant removal from the delegation program, and reserve the right to make such recommendations to the ICF as these cases arise.
Proposal #952:
mintscan.ioMintscan
Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks.
After that proposal, we can recomend to don’t have any deals with corruption scheemes of ICF, because you can go under the judgment together with them
If I have to testify in court against IСF, I will provide a lot of evidences
Also, where is admins?
Why @RoboMcGobo post in the topic about proposal information that is totally not about topic?
Is it normal practice of centralized forums?
Everything is cool when you get money.
Everything is bad when you don’t get money.
The pattern is as obvious as it can be.
Thank you, that you tell us about your patterns, but we are here not to speak about you
Please, write here about a topic, not about yourself
Okay.
Why did you list validators without consent?
Also, where is admins?
Why Posthuman post in the topic about proposal information that is totally not about topic?
Is it normal practice of centralized forums?
Why Posthuman postings names of validators without their approval and being aggressive to other people here?
If I have to testify in court against PHMN, I will provide a lot of evidences
I’ll try de-escalating the situation and returning the conversation back to the original topic From what I’ve understood the proposal is talking about having a committee consisting of 2 parts: a DAO group with responsibilities a bit similar to AADAO or Neutron Grant Foundation and a selected subset of validators that are also a part of the “resurrection” through active governance participation. For the vision to work the committee must get a boost in the voting power. This is a specific nature of the proposal and I think it’s a bit unfair to be addressing this as bribery this aggressively. If you use the same logic, you can also throw this one under the same bus. At the moment the governance is undergoing through a serious participation problem. Most of the validators aren’t active and almost every single proposal is struggling to reach the quorum. Talking about usurpation is a bit dramatic with the current status quo in my opinion It’s probably for the best to take the conversation about delegation program to another topic to keep this digestible but I think there was a bit of overreaction due to misunderstanding + conclusions being made in haste. The members of the DAO…
Excerpt (1197 of 1736 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
It IS bribery no matter how you try to turn it. Validators not being super active in these times isn’t an excuse .
Community pool funds especially shouldn’t be used to buy votes / pay validators.
Bribery is your activity here. You are bought by Cosmos Labs, and your opinion is bought We want to use CP funds to delegate to validators, and to founding marketing, enthusiasts and developers When socialist party tell: Vote for us, and workers will get bigger payment - this is not bribery When capitalist party tell: Vote for us, and enterprenurs will get more funding - this is not bribery We are party of validators, developers and enthusiasts Vote for Cosmos Resurrection Committee, and validators, developers and enthusiasts will get delegation and founding To buy votes - it\s when I pay tosomebody in advance And we don’t pay to nobody These are our election promises to support those who will support the Committee. Just like any DAO promises to support validators and developers. Now you’re writing some nonsense about bribery, solely because Cosmos Labs pays your salary. And this is further proof of the irrational use of funds. Cosmos Labs received funds from ICF, which they now use to pay private trolls who stand in the way of Cosmos’s development. People like you are traitors to Cosmos and should be publicly expelled. Unfortunately, the forum has now been…
Excerpt (1196 of 1495 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
The ICF delegation program is literally ‘bribery of validators’ 
What I was saying is that there is a specific technical need that the funds are being requested for. It’s not an arbitrary “vote for my proposal and I’ll give you X”. Call it what you want but there is a difference between the two and I simply wanted to highlight it. I think tying the committee validators to the “yes” voters is what making this controversial, so perhaps it can be chosen differently somehow. StunZeed: Community pool funds especially shouldn’t be used to buy votes / pay validators. This is misrepresentation of the objective. Paying validators for additional responsibilities has been one of the main use cases historically. In any case payments have never been brought up in this discussion. StunZeed: Validators not being super active in these times isn’t an excuse The assumption that it’s a temporary issue is not correct. On the contrary, it’s persistent and it’s getting worse and worse over time. It’s related to the problem being addressed in the Nakamoto Coefficient proposal I had linked At the moment there is ~28% of the voting power held by validators that have never voted on any of the proposals. There are also validators…
Excerpt (1197 of 2040 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
If that voting power was never used (the 42% you mentioned), then it makes no sense to talk about it, because it won’t be used in the future either. Meanwhile, you need to remember that there are a few CEX validators who never vote on proposals, and all these CEX validators have huge VP compared to others. But again, since they never vote, it doesn’t really matter.
However, what does really matter is the fact that the PHMN validator is trying to abuse the governance system by speculating with delegations. Moreover, aside from PHMN’s manipulations, we also need to acknowledge that he is calling all validators who oppose his “brilliant” idea scoundrels and henchmen of ICL. I wish we all spoke the same language so everyone could understand what he says about others on his streams and in his chats — thankfully, I have friends who share and translate it.
I see where you’re coming from, but to my knowledge you apply for the delegation program with your contributions. That’s like funding programs for organizations who have contributED public goods.
This right here is a pay check for clicking yes.
Paid with tax money of stakers.
We are talking about community pool funds. Idk if you have to catch up, but even 1.5 mil for Stargaze has been considered a crucial amount by many. Community pool funds should be used to bring value to the hub, and they have historically failed to do so. How’s that committees work look like? Scrolling through instagrams influencers and deciding which one will be approached to shill Atom? It would be more honest to elect people for such a job, people who have a background in marketing. Rather than giving those ‚the responsibility‘ to do that because they voted yes (which gave them $$ in delegation before any work was done). To your previous comment: „ As for the list of the validators my assumption is that there was at least partial agreement / approval of the proposed ideas but there was a misalignment / misunderstanding about the final look of the proposal“ IMG_0874 1290×2796 377 KB IMG_0875 1290×2796 367 KB Does this look professional to you? Posthuman has a record of unprofessionalism - see his previous proposal in which he asks for money because his math was bad. Then check the follow up forum post in which he tries to go after forum trolls - which by his…
Excerpt (1198 of 1542 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Long_Live_Cosmos: f that voting power was never used (the 42% you mentioned), then it makes no sense to talk about it, I’d agree if it wasn’t for the fact that they aren’t ignored by the on-chain governance processes. Because of this proposals having overwhelming support of the community are still barely getting passed. Check the Token Factory one for example. There are many implications to this like risk of the deposit getting burned, builders having confidence and being able to do long-term planning etc Long_Live_Cosmos: However, what does really matter is the fact that the PHMN validator is trying to abuse the governance system by speculating with delegations. I want to be honest and impartial as much as possible and gonna tell straight away that I haven’t grasped the whole picture myself. The assumption I got is that the activity is meant to be happening through both Daodao and the native governance mechanism. The latter requires addressing the highlighted problem and making delegations is a way to address it StunZeed: This right here is a pay check for clicking yes. In my opinion it’s an ambiguous situation: On one hand it’s…
Excerpt (1195 of 3983 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
kromsten:This proposal literally says that it is giving the staking part (+rewards) back in case of unsuccessful operation. The money needs to be used as investment, to experiment, to fund potential revenue-bringeres. Sitting idle on it forever isn’t a smart straregy
There’s no kpi’s.
[quote=“kromsten, post:45, topic:16415”]
I believe that was exactly plan for the proposed DAO structur
Funny enough his requirements perfectly fit to what he thinks about himself.
What kind of a reaction do you expect from a half baked proposal that spent more thought on how much money it seeks than what and who judges the quality of the work done. Was there a mention of an oversight?
I called it bribe and grift because this is what it is, the vast majority of people agree with me. So where do I get personal? For sharing my opinion? Let’s see what ChatGPT says:
The personal beef came up the moment I asked why he added validators without informing them, being accused of being paid for saying what I say.
Today, he banned 4 people for asking questions about the proposal. I don’t know how many more red flags you need.
Antropocosmist:er that proposal, we can recomend to don’t have any deals with corruption scheemes of ICF, because you can go under the judgment together with them
And now you’re lying. You’ve already received a response regarding the validators. I’m chatting in your centralized Telegram, where you’re behaving extremely inappropriately
You need to calm down, have some tea, and we’ll talk when you’re calm. Conversing with her while you’re hysterical is pointless; you don’t understand anything anyway
All this forum is one huge red flag
Just look who is the Admin and Moderator here:
@RoboMcGobo - this person is a member of the ICF, but the community doesn’t trust the ICF by Proposal #952 - why Cosmos forum is moderated by person who we can’t trust?
He’s also been embezzling funds from the Osmosis community for several years now!
This person paid $100,000 for the production of 10 videos that were screen captures.
Because of @RoboMcGobo the price of OSMO dropped so dramatically.
The ICF engaged in irrational spending, which led to the proposal of mistrust of their activities.
On what basis are people involved in corrupt activities still administering the Cosmos forum?
And now the ICF is paying Cosmos Labs to ward off the threat. In other words, Cosmos Labs is receiving corrupt money, and with this money they finance the hysterics of the private trolls @StunZeed , who are throwing tantrums and attacking Cosmos contributors
This is not a just red flag, this is coumminist demonstaration
Can you provide any proof of your words—like receipts, transactions, or anything? You’re always saying something bad about everyone and everything, but you never provide any evidence. Same as on the other side — you’re always talking great about yourself, but where is your portfolio of successful projects? Oh, sorry, I forgot — you’ve never completed a single successful project - you always only asking for money, but never showed anything worth it
This your message alone contain more value than half of the discussion here. It literally addresses the points that you find missing or not addressed properly. Despite the tone it’s for the most part more respectful than most of what’s been before. Didn’t understand the second sentence though (nor want
While you can make am argument about a bribe being a valid neutral assumption, the grift shows it was personal earlier than that
My intent here wasn’t to teach anyone morals. Nor do I consider myself having rights for that. I’m simply an engineer who likes to see things getting better. In this case CosmosHub specifically. I might be wrong but I don’t think everyone here has the same objective in mind
Nevertheless it was nice to see a smaöö sign of improvement. Imma head out for a while and leave you all to it
I’ll make it easier to understand for everyone who’s still here.
To the point that you say is addressed:
The vast majority in here thinks the proposal is shit.
We see another episode of baseless accusations.
We also see him twist things:
here he lies to his community that those validators that said they don’t want anything to do with his proposal (cito, everstake) were on board but then icl started pressuring them and they got scared and revoked their participation agreement https://youtu.be/Lo6Hl3x5QNw?si=r7BGjo8HcY_DIGlT&t=2705
So yea, enough of this bullshit. Will never pass.
Absolute NWV
It sounds like it was written by a child
We will edit proposal and make it better, and include all answers
This is just a draft proposal, not on-chain
We want to get feedback to update it, and after will provide new version as a draft, and will do it, until will get good result
Thank you for all your feedback, you help to improve this proposal
Sir, I would very much like you to hear me out before you proceed with ICF to exclude the POSTHUMAN validator.
Let’s look at this proposal from a different angle. You will probably agree with me if we talk about facts, right?
The POSTHUMAN validator has done and continues to do tremendous work with the community, which speaks to his merits to everyone living in the COSMOS ecosystem. You probably already know all this. The main task of the forum is to discuss proposals and make adjustments, offer your views, and generally take the initiative to propose ideas. That’s true, don’t you agree?
I disagree on some points, so I believe that, overall, this proposal needs to be revised, but you want to deprive someone who has devoted all their time to the ecosystem of their rights for their contributions.
If we consider the fact that online casinos profit from ordinary users for their own benefit—and their scheme is actually quite simple and profitable—I will now explain it in more detail:
A casino makes a deal with bloggers on platforms such as YouTube, Twitch, and others. The bloggers simply play in the casino publicly in front of their audience, and this scheme works. So what if we take this idea into consideration? It’s always easy to criticize someone, but we also need to be able to offer alternatives.
No needs to write it
This is just a form of economical preasure on decentralized desicion making
That’s why they write about ICF decision not in topic about ICF decisions, but in topic about draft proposal
More over, this is just a draft proposal, not on-chain proposal, and it’s published to get feedback to improve proposal
But they don’t care about procedure of discussion of draft proposals
They just want to scary other validators, by showing that if somebody will have another point of view than ICF - they will not get delegation
Also, this is one of the reasons, why validators that was previously for this proposal started to write that they are not supporting CRC
Because ICF and Cosmos Labs threaten the absence of delegations
I think we can all agree that at this point , cosmos Atom actually needs sustained marketing, the question is, which is the best approach to use or combine together to achieve much needed impact
I think this proposal is poorly constructed—messy and chaotic. I genuinely don’t see how this committee of influencers and validators plans to responsibly distribute such a large amount of money in any efficient way. Especially coming from Antropocosmist, who has always struck me as disorganized, unprofessional, and ineffective. All this money will simply be distributed poorly, with no tangible impact beyond a handful of Twitter KOL warriors moving air in a completely dried-out CT environment. At this point, I see those supporting this proposal as scavengers interested only in free money.
As others have stated, I would much prefer to see a quote from a professional team operating in this field, with clear KPIs and defined objectives. And for a pilot test, the requested amount should be drastically lower than what is being proposed here.
Wait a little bit, I just need to finish all preparations, and I will publish new version of proposal, with more information, KPI, strategy and so on
Cosmos Hub without marketing - will be artifact of developers for developers
Looking at this with a clear head, this proposal is trying to treat the symptoms instead of the underlying condition. Cosmos doesn’t suffer from a lack of noise. It suffers from a lack of tangible reasons for builders and users to stay. No marketing campaign, no matter how flashy, can fix that.
Marketing without real adoption is a megaphone pointed at an empty square. You can spark short term excitement, maybe generate a wave of hype, but you can’t replace actual value. What we need first are live applications, active developers, good tooling, and user experiences that demonstrate why Cosmos matters in practice. The tech is here, but it needs real world expression, not slogans.
If the ecosystem becomes strong, marketing can amplify it. If the ecosystem stays fragile, marketing will only create more noise and unrealistic expectations. Funds should go toward strengthening the core, not decorating the shell.
In short, we don’t need an aggressive marketing campaign. We need proof that this ecosystem is worth building on. That’s the foundation; everything else is cosmetic.
If this ever reaches the chain as a proposal, it’s a No with veto from me.
No adoption in Cosmos
Nobody knows about Cosmos tach
No more community
Projects are leaving Cosmos
Community leaving Cosmos
You can try to build anything, just nobody will use it without marketing
We were developing core and infrastructure since the beginning, and what do we have?
Contantly falling ATOM
Without marketing - tech is developers artifact
We are living in the world, where people buy because of package, not contain
Everyone is entitled to their own vision, and I respect that. You can have all the Trump or Ripple stickers, but does it really change anything? To me, the vision for Cosmos isn’t about talking, it’s about building something people actually use. That’s the kind of impact that matters. I really appreciate how clearly you laid out your ideas here. It’s exciting to see people thinking about practical ways to grow the ecosystem, not just hype it. At the end of the day, it’s these kinds of discussions that can turn concepts into real, usable tools that benefit the whole community.
Such idiotic offtopic!
Thanks for the heads up! I just wanted to add some context to the proposal and share my thoughts to make the discussion more practical
l.malkowsky: Looking at this with a clear head, this proposal is trying to treat the symptoms instead of the underlying condition. Cosmos doesn’t suffer from a lack of noise. It suffers from a lack of tangible reasons for builders and users to stay. No marketing campaign, no matter how flashy, can fix that. For the builders to stay you need them to come in the first place. You need to attract them somehow. At the moment there is no tangible prospects for new talent e.g. university students to end up being interested in Cosmos technology: • SEO is not favourable at all:I dare you to make a search like: “web3 / blockchain [tech] for beginners” or similar and finding Cosmos in the results • Social media, discussion and QA platforms like Reddit and Quora rarely feature Cosmos • There are no (Solana) Superteam-like community-building initiatives that also act like incubators • Hackathons don’t attract long-term interest and too expensive in general • “Word of mouth” is not guaranteed to be positive at this point Despite being in ecosystem for long time as someone who isn’t core developer I have no idea how Cosmos Interoperability vision is better than competitors…
Excerpt (1197 of 2342 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
So sad that nobody uses Cosmos…
We are building already 6 years, I was speaking with so many developers, and all the time the same problem: We built very cool tool (tech, service, product) - but nobody uses it
In our world - marketing is practical
People with use something with hype, and nobody want to use something without hype
At the end of the days - Cosmos Hub will have the same results as Juno:
- Great tech
- Constantly falling price
- No hype
- No devs
- No community
Send the asteroid and bring Atom to zero after this nonsense.
What do you mean?
Which nonsense?
Here is a discussion about draft proposal
It will be updated soon, and we will start new discussion about new draft proposal
This is how consensus works: people are spending time to get the best solution
Also, ATOM already go to zero, thanx to Cosmos Labs and ICF
ICF sold more ATOMs than anybody else^they dump ATOM
Cosmos Labs do nothing for ATOM, and don’t give others to do something, because they just want to centralize governance
Are you on the side of decentralization, or on the side centralization?
In all 6 years you haven’t launched a single successful product. And if I’m not mistaken, you’ve already received grants before, but wasted the money — you simply didn’t do the work and just spent the funds. And now no one gives you grants anymore because people already know you’re just a scammer. So don’t lie to us about how you’ve been successfully building something here
Developers actually have real projects to show for their work. In your case, nothing is known about your projects at all, yet you constantly talk about them as if they were incredibly successful. If that’s true, then why does no one know about them?
P.S. We’re all still waiting for you to go build your ‘amazing’ projects on Solana like you promised back in the summer. So please pack your things and go join your friends there. Just don’t forget to shut down your Cosmos validator — it would be strange to FUD Cosmos while still living off it and spending its rewards on drugs
Who are you?
One more paid multi-private account?
Even your user profile is hiden
So, no real need to try to prove something to unknow accout, looks like you are nothing, and all your words - just toxic
Unlike you, I’m not asking for anything and I’m not presenting my achievements as something great. You, on the other hand, are doing both. Instead of starting every time with talk about trolls and things like that, you should work on improving your communication skills and learn how to back up your words with facts and actions. Right now, you just sound like an empty talker who takes any question or criticism as an insult — that’s how only children behave, the kind who think they know everything better than everyone else.
Think about the image you’re creating of yourself in the social space. For most people reading this, you look like a very comical person who’s unable to handle someone else’s opinion and constantly gets offended by everything. So please work on your communication skills and your ability to perceive other people’s words. After all, we all live in society, and it’s very strange to place yourself above others without any basis for it. All your recent posts are nothing but accusations without any evidence, which looks rather comical because there are countless justified claims and questions directed at you that you can’t give any reasonable answers to.
Buddy, the difference is obvious. When Robo’s bosses that write his check bribe people, it’s ok. When other people bribe people, it’s not ok. See?
Wait so for the record, this IS a bribe?
I rest my case lol
Unlike me, you already paid by Cosmos Labs, to spread here toxicity
Your nonsense is pretty tiring.
Where is proof for any of your ridiculous claims? Whoever disagrees with your obviously bad idea is paid by Cosmos Labs, really?
By your logic - whoever agrees with you is paid by you then. And you are paid by Jae to destroy Cosmos for all we know.
You are the most toxic one here, behaving like a child that can not take any criticism and didn’t get what he wanted and now throwing a tantrum.
Why I didn’t receive any penny or maybe it’s another bla-bla from you? Oh, what’s is the point of my question, we already know the answer
We don’t know who are you are
Maybe you just a multi-account of @StunZeed
So, no trust to your words
But all you do - is propaganda of no changes in the Cosmos, that is main linke of Cosmos Labs
Your profile is created not so long time ago, and most of your posts, is write the same shit in topics that is created by me
You account is one more multi-account paid by Cosmos Labs
Mate, I wanna be honest with you - everything you see here and read is not real, that’s matrix and we are all living in your head… we just a part of your consciousness…
Nobody interested in honest of private multi-account
This is a topic not about your honesty
Stop to spam, and if you write something here - write about topic
Nobody interested in your private out of personality
Bla bla bla bla
Kindly waiting for your new “great” prop
Lmao took 5 sec to see that there’s a huge amount of bots following their page.
Even though i would like to see a discussion about marketing efforts on this forum, this proposal is poisened by the violation of governance integrity. I would even suggest to close this thread at this point.
Visibility is helpful, but visibility alone doesn’t convert developers. Solana didn’t grow because of ads, it grew because of tooling, funding, reference applications, Superteam, and a clear path for devs to build something meaningful. If we care about attracting builders, we need onboarding infrastructure, not just exposure. Promotion without support leads to churn, not retention. Marketing amplifies ecosystems that are ready. It doesn’t repair ecosystems that aren’t
My take on the why there are no devs, question is much simpler than people make it. It’s not just a visibility or marketing problem. The reality is that maybe 1% of developers in the space actually understand Cosmos tech at a level where they can build something meaningful on it. And even fewer are comfortable with Rust or Go, which are amazing languages for real systems engineering, but not popular entry points for Web3 beginners. Cosmos is extremely powerful, but it’s also extremely advanced. It asks people to build sovereign chains, not just deploy tokens or copy and paste solidity contracts. Most developers today are application oriented, not protocol oriented. Most are looking for fast iterations, quick UX, and an ecosystem that supports experimentation without reading research papers. And most users in the current crypto market are even more extreme, they don’t want to understand anything. They want price action, narratives, and speculation. They want to pump their bags, not study interoperability models. So from my perspective, the issue isn’t that Cosmos is lacking hype, it’s that it’s ahead of its audience. The tech is beautiful, but it intimidates beginners and doesn’t…
Excerpt (1197 of 1429 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Who is going to draw a path, build tooling and reference applications? Chicken-and-egg problem
Building contracts or communicating with a chain is way easier in Cosmos than in Solana.
Multi-chain token manipulation is where it gets complex but it’s needed for certain apps only
Building contracts or communicating with a chain might be easier in Cosmos than in Solana, only for certain tasks. But the point isn’t just the individual transaction complexity, it’s the overall ecosystem IBC, sovereign chains, staking and governance. These are advanced concepts that most devs and new users still find intimidating. Marketing alone won’t solve this tooling, guides, and reference apps are still needed to bridge the gap
Well said. Attracting people before you are ready for them can be a set back because they show up, see there is nothing there they can use yet, and now you’ve made a bad first impression and they are more likely to cross you off their mental list of options.
Friends! Thank you for your feedback, we will update proposal, will add more details about marketing campaign, also we will add more information about supporting tooling and services to create additinal utility for ATOM, also we will add plans to update tokenomics, and of course we will clearify moment with delegations to validators!
After it, a new draft proposal will be created on forum, to discuss it, and maybe to update it, or to accept to publish it.
For now, this topic can be closed, as we get enough feedback, and now we know how to make this proposal better!
Thank you for constructive feedback!