Executive Summary Proposal: Acquisition and merger of Osmosis into the Cosmos Hub. The Cosmos Hub and broader Cosmos ecosystem are entering a new phase. After years of sovereign experimentation and expansion, it is increasingly clear that stack usage alone does not guarantee economic gravity for the Hub itself. Recent ecosystem contraction, highlights the need for action in strengthening ATOM’s direct economic foundations. Osmosis is battle-tested infrastructure that has operated continuously since 2021. It has reached operational maturity, with established revenue, durable adoption, and deep integration across Cosmos. It represents proven, trusted, revenue-generating DeFi infrastructure that can operate at scale. This proposal consolidates that mature infrastructure under ATOM governance. By integrating Osmosis into the Cosmos Hub, we eliminate redundant security costs, concentrate capital formation on the Cosmos Hub, and establish direct value accrual for ATOM from ecosystem activity. At current pricing, the maximum theoretical cost of this consolidation is less than ~2.5% of total ATOM supply, the majority of which is already held in the Cosmos Hub Community Pool.…

Excerpt (1194 of 18699 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Osmosis is the cosmos powerhouse, and it was my first Dex experience in crypto, alongside many others. As an Atom holder, I’ve been eagerly waiting for this moment and it’s finally here. It’s meant to be.

sunnya97:

The conversion rate will be 0.0355 OSMO = 1.998 ATOM

before anything else, this is a little confusing actually

@highstakes good catch. Fixed in the text.

Updated

I absolutely would have loved to vote yes to a merger between ATOM and OSMO.

But unfortunately, this also entails minting extra ATOM outside of the regular inflation schedule. If passed, we would then have precedence of governance overriding / undermining tokenomics. It was also made clear there will be no room for any negotiation or discussion.

This, in my opinion, actively harms the chain.

No with Veto.

Another day, another golden parachute.

I never supported the stargaze proposal, and I also don’t see a convincing case here. This looks like a large value transfer from the Cosmos Hub to another token ecosystem without a clear business case for ATOM.

Osmosis may be valuable infrastructure, but that alone doesn’t justify an acquisition funded by ATOM holders. The proposal explains why Osmosis is good — not why this is a good deal for the Cosmos Hub.

Before something of this scale is considered, the community should see a clear business case and how value actually accrues back to ATOM.

If the Osmosis DEX generates $5.5M per year, why is selling it to the Cosmos Hub a better deal for Osmosis than simply continuing to operate it independently?

A big yes to this proposal !

what comes around goes around =)

YES!!! We are a validator on both networks and are totally in favor of this idea, as long as the details make sense. It will help both communities, both tokens, and the institutional clients the Hub is courting.

The Osmosis team must be contractually obligated to maintain the DEX and continue development to quiet the voices who say this is a bail out using the Hub CP as exit liquidity.

Cosmos Labs makes excellent points that must be worked out one by one: [Proposal ##][DRAFT] Acquisition and Merger of Osmosis into the Cosmos Hub aka COSMOSIS - #22 by Chicken_Rex

Why would you want to have everything on the Hub, and make the blockchain do more and more things as time goes by? You can approach it in a different way if people really want Osmosis to be CosmosHub: • Stop OSMO inflation • Make ATOM the main coin of Osmosis blockchain. The chain already supports multiple currencies as fees, switch it to exchange fees to ATOM and distribute it to validators and delegators • bring liquidity from outside the ecosystem via CosmosHub IBC connection • think about burning OSMO to get ATOM or find the right tokenomics for people to switch from OSMO to ATOM in a fair way (Both have fat community pools to use). • Make ATOM (IBC denom) the staking coin on Osmosis, let people decide where they want to stake it: for a slice of the inflation or for a slice of the DEX fees • A simple “Deposit to DEX” would be enough for someone to have his coins moved from the chain to the trading area. People already do it on centralized exchanges. And the list can continue. Sit down and find a way to let the DEX be a separate environment that can be IBC limited, halted in case of disaster, permissionless/permissioned CosmWASM, and so on. Let the trading engine…

Excerpt (1199 of 1466 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Very interesting and have been working with Osmosis since day 1 and will continue to not only see this through but also have StreamSwap itself as a way to make $$ right on Cosmos Hub along with the rest of the liquidity ops.

All the best to team Osmosis & Cosmos Hub along with the apps on Osmosis!

This is one of the worst proposals I have ever seen.
Back then, they claimed the Hub was useless and wanted to kill off ATOM.
Now, just like Stargaze, they are begging for an acquisition.
It’s yet another dead project trying to use $ATOM holders as exit liquidity. This proposal makes absolutely no sense; things that deserve to die should just be allowed to die. If the OSMO token is headed to zero, let it happen on its own—don’t try to drag ATOM down with it now that nobody wants it.

I spent 1 dollar to buy 1osmo myself. I think the merger is very unfair to me. Now it’s either a merger or a good thing. How to introduce money into Cosmos is the biggest thing. The merged atom still can’t get value, and the emissions exceed the value obtained. The price of atom is still falling. Unless there is a new way to get value, the price of atom will go up, no However, the merger is equivalent to procrastinating the extension of life, which is useless.

Technical clarity should remain a priority Over the years, Osmosis has evolved into a complex system with many layers of optimizations specific to its DEX architecture. If a merger into the Cosmos Hub were ever to happen, many community members would likely see it as an opportunity not simply to move the existing stack, but to simplify, modernize, and refactor parts of the architecture. At the moment, the proposal does not clearly address several important technical questions: Would such a migration involve refactoring or simplifying the current DEX architecture, or would the existing codebase simply be ported as-is? You mentioned existing modules, but can you clearly bring us some informations. Who would be responsible for maintaining and evolving the codebase long-term? You mentioned on the TG 4 OG members but who are they ? Would development continue with a focus on new innovation and features, or would the priority mainly be maintaining the current system? Acquiring a DEX only makes sense if it continues to innovate and actively develop. Cosmos Hub doesn’t need a DEX that stays in maintenance mode; it needs one that keeps pushing innovation and performance. For…

Excerpt (1198 of 1628 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’ve always wanted to see some tighter form of consolidation between Osmosis and the Hub. Osmosis has always been a key economic hub in the Cosmos Network. Past efforts at consolidation never went anywhere, but with the broader contraction in the ecosystem, it feels like a good time.

While Cosmos transformed the landscape of how people build blockchains, our own chains have languished. Hopefully this proposal can be a step towards some revitalization. The Cosmos stack remains one of the best, but the ecosystem has always suffered from fragmentation. We should be making an active effort at consolidation.

I’d love to see a stronger Hub, with a great integrated DeX, and a booming dev ecosystem. However, I understand that Cosmos Labs priorities have rather been on enterprise adoption of the stack. As enterprise adoption materializes, I’d expect a strong liquidity Hub to be an ideal complement.

As a OSMO holder I am voting a firm NO on this proposal. 1. Parasitism, Not Innovation: For years, the Cosmos Hub has struggled to find a sustainable value accrual model for ATOM. Attempting to fix this now by swallowing the ecosystem’s most successful DeFi product is a sign of surrender, not leadership. The Hub should develop its own revenue streams rather than seizing them from Osmosis. 2. Killing Sovereignty: The core ethos of Cosmos has always been sovereignty. This merger turns a fast-paced, innovative DeFi laboratory into a bloated, bureaucratic module within the Hub. It will stifle the very innovation that made Osmosis a market leader. 3. Predatory Conversion Terms: The proposed exchange rate forces massive losses on long-term supporters who stayed through the bear market (my average entry is 0.134). We are being asked to swap a high-upside asset for a “heavy” ATOM at a rate lower than the current market price. 4. Conflicting Mandates: ATOM’s role is security and interoperability. Osmosis’s role is risk and trade. Merging these distinct domains creates systemic risks for the entire ecosystem. The Hub needs to evolve by providing unique services to the Interchain,…

Excerpt (1198 of 1272 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

As one of the core devs at Osmosis, I’d love to see the Osmosis DEX and liquidity ported to the Hub, I support this proposal. A more tightly coupled Hub and DEX could be what’s needed to kickstart to a more community driven hub! New contracts for CosmWasm pools, leverage the liquidity for new protocols, new markets, honestly could be a great win for all. I definitely expect some teams are already drafting some smart contracts as well speak!

Get it on the Hub lickety-split

Proposal is basically a golden parachute for devs leaving. Should have tried to merge at higher prices years ago as yelled into the void a billion times.

That said, the hub does need a dex imo.

Just need to find the right number and be sensible about it.

@sunnya97 First of all I have to say that I know you since back in 2017/18 and I was always impressed by your knowledge. But as a Cosmos Hub validator I have to be critical and think about the best interests for the Cosmos hub sunnya97: In 2025, Osmosis generated approximately $5.5M in revenue. With its projected core maintenance costs being low (~$550k per year), Osmosis operates at a multiple fold net profit. The first question is, the projected maintenance costs mentioned are estimated after the migration to the Cosmos hub or in 2025? Because if it is in 2025 as others have said wouldn’t make sense that you are trying to sell a very profitable company. Please clarify whether this cost estimation refers to 2025 or after the migration to the Cosmos hub and a much more detailed breakdown of these costs is needed sunnya97: The conversion rate will be `0.0355 ATOM per 1.998 OSMO`. This is based on the 30-day TWAP of the ATOM:OSMO price on March 11, 2026 (the time of public forum proposal). Using current pricing as reference, the maximum theoretical ATOM required for full participation would be approximately 11.82M ATOM. Importantly: • The…

Excerpt (1193 of 3109 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Our Position After full review, Cosmos Labs does not support this proposal in its current form. At the outset, we would like to share our respect and admiration for the Osmosis team and their contributions to the Cosmos stack, and to the blockchain space at large. We agree on the underlying principle: the Cosmos Hub should have a native liquidity venue to continue to service the ecosystem’s need for on-chain liquidity, power Skip:go, and expand the Hub’s ability to service new enterprise networks launching in Cosmos. A well-integrated DEX on the Hub is a legitimate strategic goal — and merging Osmosis with the Hub is one of many possible options to achieve that goal. That said, we do not currently support the proposal in the current form, given our concerns on the proposed valuation, transaction structure or the sufficiency of the information currently provided to assess the proposal. Questions about Osmosis’s long-term product fit vs other solutions and the technical risks associated with deploying the Osmosis architecture on the Hub are also not addressed by this proposal. Our response below explains what is missing and why it matters before any vote is held. What…

Excerpt (1197 of 13468 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Let’s call this proposal what it actually is: a bailout. Not a strategic acquisition, not a bold vision for the Cosmos Hub — a bailout of a declining chain, dressed up in the language of consolidation and opportunity. The Community Pool is not a rescue fund The Cosmos Hub Community Pool exists to fund the growth and development of the Hub itself, not to absorb the failures of third-party projects. We already set a bad precedent with the Stargaze migration. Doing it again with Osmosis would confirm a deeply worrying pattern: that projects which fail to find their footing can simply offload their problems onto ATOM holders. This is not a sustainable or healthy dynamic for the ecosystem. The risks are real and unaddressed The proposal presents $5.5M in annual revenue as a strong argument for the merger. But nothing guarantees that this figure holds after the migration. Volume follows liquidity, and liquidity follows incentives. There is no guarantee that liquidity providers will migrate to the Hub. There is no guarantee that market makers will follow. If even a fraction of current liquidity fails to transition, those revenue projections become meaningless. More…

Excerpt (1188 of 2341 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmic_Validator:

there is not enough liquidity to exit around $20-30 million in OSMO with minimum price slippage.

I don’t think we should assume the entirety of OSMO held is going to exit, the current OSMO holders are holders after ~5 years. I’d actually bet the opposite is true, resulting in more long term ATOM holders.

At the same time, Osmosis is bringing ~5m in existing assets to be spent on growing Cosmos Hub.

The ask is around half a day’s volume of ATOM, or ~2 months of inflation (ATOM is at 10% inflation, with 16% staking apr currently).

And I think if zooming out further and comparing it to other costs in the ecosystem, its even smaller

I think these 4 points are very understandable, but Cosmos is in a sink or swim scenario. Currently, there is zero growth or path for ATOM and the Cosmos Hub.

We’ve seen many notable teams leave the Cosmos in just the last few months, and there are more gearing to leave as well.

Initiative needs to be taken asap and I dont think we can assume a path for ATOM and the Cosmos Hub will just will its way into existence otherwise.

I am categorically against the proposed merger in its current form, especially from the perspective of converting osmo into atom at such an unfavorable rate. It looks like an attempt to “save” the Cosmos Hub at the expense of osmo holders who have supported the project for years and taken the risks. Let’s break this down point by point. First, I invested in osmo at prices of $1–2, believing in the independent development of osmosis as a leading DEX in the Cosmos ecosystem. I did not buy the token so that it could later be forcibly converted into atom at a rate that locks in huge losses for long-term holders. The average entry price for many of us ranges from $0.10 to $1–2 per osmo, while the proposed rate of 0.0355 atom for 1.998 osmo (effectively ~60 osmo for 1 atom) is a clear loss. It appears that the team and insiders simply “cashed out” on ordinary investors like us, and now they present “migration” as a form of rescue. This is not evolution - it is a betrayal of trust. If any conversion is to happen, it should only occur at a 1:1 rate with an immediate snapshot of current holdings in order to preserve the value for those who supported the ecosystem. Second, a full merger…

Excerpt (1199 of 2736 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Guinch_Roze: Who would be responsible for maintaining and evolving the codebase long-term? You mentioned on the TG 4 OG members but who are they ? This would actually be more around 5-6 ppl. Infra & Maintenance & Ecosystem - 3 ppl (Jason, Alessandro, JohnnyW) Growth - ~2 ppl (Myself + OGP team) Marketing - 1 person (David) Guinch_Roze: Would development continue with a focus on new innovation and features, or would the priority mainly be maintaining the current system? Acquiring a DEX only makes sense if it continues to innovate and actively develop. Cosmos Hub doesn’t need a DEX that stays in maintenance mode; it needs one that keeps pushing innovation and performance. The priority would be more than maintaining the current system. Growth opportunities are actually quite abundant, but they haven’t really been pursued for the Cosmos Hub… and at the same time, having a base DEX tends to be table stakes. However, leverage is key, so pushing these from a siloed chain (Osmosis) would be poor leverage. Pushing these from a top 50 chain makes more sense. There are substantial misses in coordinating with Ethereum & Solana to go pursue, RWAfi is…

Excerpt (1194 of 1549 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

AaronK:

I don’t think we should assume the entirety of OSMO held is going to exit, the current OSMO holders are holders after ~5 years. I’d actually bet the opposite is true, resulting in more long term ATOM holders.

The point is not whether the OSMO community will sell or not the ATOM, the point is using the whole ATOM community pool to allow full exit for OSMO holders with zero slippage. Again, this is of course great for the Osmosis community but I don’t see the benefit for the ATOM community, there are several better uses of the community pool funds

AaronK:

The ask is around half a day’s volume of ATOM, or ~2 months of inflation

You are talking about general not about community pool especifically, to accumulate around 10M ATOM in the community pool it took a very long time and these funds can be used in different ways bringing value to the Cosmos hub. Fully emptying the community pool and requiring even more ATOM to facilitate the exit for OSMO holders I don’t think it is the best use of the community pool funds for the ATOM community

It’s not fully emptying the pool, there’s still over $1m in USDC

Though, would you propose a pure mint instead of using the pool’s ATOM?

Cosmic_Validator:

the point is using the whole ATOM community pool to allow full exit for OSMO holders with zero slippage

I don’t think that’s a relevant argument. It’s a buyout and not a trade, so the OSMO holders would be entitled to get the full value of their tokens in ATOM – I don’t see them as exiting, as the majority will likely (hopefully) just become atom stakers.

The actual question is to determine the source of the ATOM since as was pointed out multiple times, emptying the CP is not a viable option for the Hub.

Cosmos Labs made solid points so let’s see where this goes.

I’m gonna vote against this proposal

If you want to preserve Osmosis, then at the very least, offer fair terms to the people who have been supporting you all along and continue to do so.

All thoughts here:

AaronK: It’s not fully emptying the pool, there’s still over $1m in USDC Though, would you propose a pure mint instead of using the pool’s ATOM? What do you mean? According to the proposal it is emptying the whole ATOM community pool plus additionally requiring even more ATOM. And the value of the ATOM community pool at current prices is around $20M, so even if $1M was left that is basically emptying the pool also I am not proposing neither using the full ATOM community pool nor minting. I propose and support what Cosmos labs said above in a very detailed message highstakes: I don’t think that’s a relevant argument. It’s a buyout and not a trade, so the OSMO holders would be entitled to get the full value of their tokens in ATOM – I don’t see them as exiting, as the majority will likely (hopefully) just become atom stakers. This is not a private equity buyout because the equity (tokens) are fully liquid and tradeable not like in a private company, just there is no liquidity for a market buyout since the slippage would be huge to exit around $20M. The ATOM community pool is basically being used as a counterparty buyer of around $20M with zero…

Excerpt (1192 of 1537 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi all, Derek from the OGP here. As a longtime Osmosis contributor and fan of Cosmos, I wanted to share my perspective:

A strong DEX is the foundation of any on-chain ecosystem. Osmosis is clearly a premier product and brand in Cosmos, and it’s reflected in the product itself, which is a smooth, easy experience comparable to any of the premier DEXs on other chains. With the foundation of a strong DEX formally aligned with the Hub, the community can rally around a real value-generating app that can become the foundation for a thriving ecosystem. But getting to that end state of a thriving ecosystem requires upfront investment, whether it’s time or money, and the ROI here is clearly positive. We think this collaboration would be a win-win and encourage the community to chime in.

From the OGP’s standpoint, we are excited to support this collaboration, should governance approve it, anyway we can. Whether that’s seeding market-makers for liquidity bootstrapping to ensure competitive spreads, working on specific growth strategies, or funding an ecosystem good, we are aligned on the ultimate mission of helping drive value to the ATOM token.

This is going to end up like the Stargaze one probably. There’s no realistic price that will satisfy Osmo token holders.

Hey, Trevor from BitBadges. I am fully in support of this proposal, but I am not a validator so will refrain from commenting on any proposal specifics. One idea that I would like to throw out there is to complement this proposal with a path for the BitBadges tokenization module to be deployed on the Hub as well. This can be a value-add for all parties and potentially be the missing piece to the puzzle. How? • As an exclusive module on the Hub purpose-built for assets, RWAs, payments, and tokenization with compliance at every level, the benefits are two-fold: a) Osmosis gets a clear path and infrastructure to onboard more assets directly to the DEX, more growth, more adoption and b) the Hub can instantly become a dedicated hub for enterprise-grade tokenization and payments. The infrastructure on the Hub would be complete for an institutional focused tokenization roadmap (DEX + tokenization/payments/RWA tooling) with everything Cosmos-aligned at the core (ATOM, IBC, Skip;Go, Osmosis DEX). • Beyond asset tokenization, the liquidity that Osmosis could bring to the Hub + our Swiss-army knife module, this lays the groundwork for a developer ecosystem for anything from…

Excerpt (1192 of 1705 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

The idea of stronger alignment between Osmosis and the Cosmos Hub is interesting, especially if the goal is to improve value capture for ATOM.

However, the conditions proposed in the current version raise several concerns. The scale of the request relative to the Hub’s community pool, combined with the uncertainty around the actual migration of liquidity, makes the risk/reward balance difficult to evaluate for the Hub.

The topic is certainly worth exploring, as the Hub clearly needs more effective mechanisms to capture value generated across the ecosystem. Osmosis is an important piece of infrastructure in Cosmos, and it makes sense to discuss ways to better align its success with ATOM.

That said, in its current form the proposal feels quite aggressive and may benefit from further refinement to better align the interests of all parties involved and reduce the potential risks for the Hub.

Perhaps a more progressive or milestone-based approach (for example tied to liquidity migration, revenue, or adoption metrics) could help achieve this alignment while limiting the downside for the Hub?

So retail bears the risk and subsidizes a failed project that went from $10/coin down to pennies and devs get to take the money and run?

I hope the whole ecosystem dies. Do people actually buy any of this shit?

ebuchman:

on enterprise adoption

good point. cant say that osmosis is an enterprise solution. not that it lacks things. i cant really see it playing out though with the mission of cosmos labs..

PS. said that. and saw the answer from cosmoslabs.

PPS. As much respect as I had for Sunny, it does feel like trying to drop stock on the last seconds of its trading opportunity.

PPPS. not pro or against. currently undecided. watching the waves roll in

Based on Cosmos Labs response, it seems like this proposal did not get eyeballs on it in advance. Or it did, and it was decided to post it anyways. I’ll give the charitable view that this wasn’t circulated in advance. For a deal of this size, I’d expect Osmosis crew to fly out to NYC and efficiently propose the idea and get feedback from the biggest stakeholders before surfacing this raw (not fully developed) proposal to the community. Would have bought more goodwill to have the idea ironed out in private more. Perhaps the counter argument is to build ideas out in the public eye is healthy, but for something as sensitive as $21.6M from a community, I would hope that putting the best foot forward at introduction of the idea would involve preparing the proposal as much as humanly possible. In summary, this is a brutal bear market. I wish the proposal and the stakeholder alignment building would have advanced further first. But it is what it is. Eagerly awaiting v2, but realistically if there was a Polymarket bet, I don’t think this comes to the finish line without major concessions given that will be untenable to either sides. Both sides view themselves as incredibly…

Excerpt (1191 of 1280 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I believe the proposed conversion rate undervalues Osmosis and should be reconsidered. A rate closer to 1.06 ATOM per OSMO would better reflect the real value Osmosis brings to the Cosmos ecosystem. For years, Osmosis has been the primary liquidity hub for Cosmos assets. It is where most trading activity, liquidity, and price discovery in the ecosystem actually happen. Most importantly, Osmosis generates real revenue through trading fees , while the Cosmos Hub itself primarily operates as infrastructure that requires continuous funding and maintenance. In other words, Osmosis is one of the few parts of the ecosystem producing economic value, while the Hub mainly represents costs. At the same time, the proposed conversion rate is based on a 30-day TWAP calculated during a deep bear market , when activity across DeFi is significantly depressed. Historically, DeFi infrastructure tends to be heavily undervalued during bear markets , especially when trading volumes and liquidity are low. Valuing a core liquidity engine of the ecosystem at this point in the cycle likely understates its long-term importance. By integrating Osmosis into the Hub, ATOM would gain an already…

Excerpt (1189 of 1626 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Now it’s obvious why OSMO was dumping. Insiders were likely selling their OSMO while planning this proposal.

The Cosmos Labs team has been thoroughly in the loop here btw!

And yes, every item you mention did take place (Including flying out to NYC).

I agree that all stakeholders in the Cosmos need to put the best foot foward, and I think that will be the case even as we are disagreeing on forum here. Today (literally) I was chatting with 2 of the Cosmos Labs team members to brainstorm growth pursuits IF the proposal does pass.

So, while we may disagree on the proposal, we will ultimately work together and get things done should it pass.

OSMO was dumping because of OGP, who was using funds totaly irrational (thanx to @RoboMcGobo who now in the Cosmos Labs) Also, if @RoboMcGobo in Cosmos Labs, and Cosmos Labs don’t support proposal, it means that there is no place for @RoboMcGobo in OGP. I don’t want to say that McGobo is a traitor, but this kind of behavior is called betrayal all over the world. Also, if we will look at real stats, Osmosis is real Cosmos Hub Screenshot 2026-03-12 at 00.19.59 1920×1215 298 KB Just in the last 30D, Osmosis made 3 times more IBC-transfers than Cosmos Hub, and more over, most of Cosmos Hub IBC-transfers are with Osmosis Osmosis has more IBC-relayers than Cosmos Hub Screenshot 2026-03-12 at 00.21.29 1920×1215 272 KB Screenshot 2026-03-12 at 00.21.50 1920×1216 251 KB IBC-volume of Osmosis is 6 time bigger than IBC-volume of Cosmos Hub If you are looking at “real activity” (commits, PRs, and feature releases) over the last year, Osmosis often appears more “active” because it operates like a high-growth tech startup. Metric | Osmosis-Labs (osmosis) | Cosmos Hub (gaia) | Commit Volume | ~850+ commits. Extremely high daily turnover, often…

Excerpt (1199 of 3820 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

What is the plan if the proposal doesn’t pass?
And why weren’t any of these growth initiatives attempted over the last 2 years?

I’m really just looking for a stable environment to deploy & was hoping that would be Osmosis so waking up to this is great.

Cosmos needs to have onchain liquidity for its core assets or IBC is dead. The Hub needs to play a central role in the onchain liquidity.

1. TVL narrowly matters on Osmosis. Probably only for BTC, stables, and related assets. But if we can’t migrate BTC liquidity to the Cosmos Hub, the deal is probably worth a lot less. This needs to be incorporated into the deal structuring.

2. Non-discriminatory liquidity is dying. PropAMMs and intent market makers can discriminate and don’t have to provide liquidity to arb traders. ATOM/ATOM LSTs and TIA need an onchain venue with these properties.

3. Osmosis was principally designed around long-tail asset price discovery, which we can assume is dead for at least the next 12 months.

4. The Osmosis codebase will be a maintenance burden on the Hub. An intent-based solution would be simpler, cheaper, and lower overhead.

This all needs to be factored into the price.

This proposal might have some legs if the grants team was removed from the involvement It seems none from the Osmosis community has any idea who the folks involved are anymore, or what they do. There are zero updates in the past year. The website is outdated, including no new funding announcements at all, and they have closed any avenue to contact them. Zero reports on market making activities or any effort towards any sort of reporting at all, really. The last proposal for the Grant program on Osmosis was meant to end at the beginning of January. They have been operating outside of their agreement with Osmosis governance since then - they posted a renewal discussion in December which received such poor feedback the body text was deleted and never addressed again, and a proposal was never put on chain. The post itself has now been made private (the link essentially 404’s)and feedback gone, but here is a copy of the text: ``` Osmosis Grants Program Renewal Summary We propose extending the Osmosis Grants Program (“OGP)” for a further 12 months, until January 8th, 2027. There will be no major changes to the program. The program will continue its historical focus -…

Excerpt (1197 of 6437 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Back when things were going well, this idea was raised and they simply laughed it off. Now that they are in serious trouble, they are asking to be rescued, just like Stargaze. So here we are again, facing yet another bailout. And once again, who is expected to pay? The Hub.

They had no issue presenting themselves as the center of the ecosystem, while at the same time competing directly with the Cosmos Hub and making it less important in the process. Of course, migrating Osmosis could finally give the Hub the central role it should probably have had from the beginning. But we should not forget that this “go-it-alone” approach clearly hurt the broader ecosystem.

I repeat again : they were happy to ignore the Hub when they felt strong. Now that they are failing, they want the Hub to step in and rescue them.

That is not vision. That is opportunism!!!

Do not forget that playing solo definitely had a negative impact on the whole ecosystem. And for that, you need to own it and pay the price.

Why not do it for free first? And if it works, then maybe we can start talking about what your OSMO token is worth.

Went for a long walk and thought about all the massive contributions Osmosis has made to the interchain. I lead with trust, from a team who has proven themselves for years. Only a little bit mushy

but basically, I know some people have questions about details on migration and other things… but listen, if there’s a team that can and will pull it off, it’s them.

• If the proposal DOES pass, you’d definitely have a stable environment to deploy and Osmosis would definitely work with you. • If the proposal does not pass, we’ll have to figure that out afterwards. We fully intend to see this through so we are not spending out time on contingencies atm • One of the main points I mention is leverage. The leverage and ability to grow adoption as a second order of effect . Each interaction requires one extra hop, one extra explanation. • I was even having conversations with Stargaze and Mad Scientists on this… explaining “oh yeah so we have these NFTs in the Cosmos, but its not on the Cosmos Hub… it’s on this other chain called stargaze or osmosis that you have to IBC over from Cosmos Hub which is its own separate chain” etc etc etc. This is just one example, doing this across Stocks, RWAs, Tradfi institutions hopping in, or even the enterprise pursuits of the ICL currently. The DEX must sit at its highest schelling point. • So while over the last 2 years you point at, we’ve spent quite a bit of time brainstorming or pursuing initiatives such as Polaris, Intents, Privacy, Multiple custom bridges, Market Makers, NFTs, unique DeFi primitives,…

Excerpt (1197 of 1406 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Only now do I start to fully understand what is happening in the Cosmos ecosystem. Looking at the current proposal and the overall direction, it feels like both Cosmos Hub and Osmosis are being poorly managed and are heading toward a very troubling outcome. I now better understand why Jae Kwon decided to leave the Cosmos Hub. The principle of decentralization, which was supposed to be the foundation of Cosmos, is gradually being replaced by increasing centralization of decisions and consolidation of projects under a single governance structure. This raises serious concerns about the future of the ecosystem. ATOM and OSMO were supposed to be pillars of a decentralized economy within Cosmos. Instead, it increasingly looks like their value is being undermined by governance decisions and a lack of a clear long-term strategy. Personally, I feel disappointed. I believed in this vision, bought these tokens, and staked them with the expectation that resources would be used to genuinely develop the technology and strengthen the ecosystem. In hindsight, it feels like a large amount of capital has been wasted over the years or used in ways that did not create real value for token…

Excerpt (1193 of 1519 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

From atom maximizing perspective, I’m generally supportive of closer integration between the cosmos hub and osmosis. If the goal is to strengthen atom as the core economic asset of the ecosystem, bringing liquidity, defi activity and security closer to the hub makes sense. That said, the details matter. Any merger should clearly increase value accrual to atom through fees, liquidity and shared security, without creating excessive dilution. If done correctly, this could help position atom as the economic center of the cosmos ecosystem​

Hey folks, there have been a lot of misleading statements about the discussion between Cosmos Labs and the Osmosis team regarding a potential merger between the Cosmos Hub and the Osmosis chain, which I want to clarify. We take misleading information seriously, especially when being used as a weapon by the Osmosis team to achieve their desired outcome as they move on to new projects and hand Osmosis off to a maintenance team. Context The contention being made is that Cosmos Labs somehow misled the Osmosis team into believing that we would support their merger proposal in public, and then surprised them with a non-supportive response when the proposal went live. This is false. Sunny and the team approached us in December with a proposal for an Osmosis-Hub merger, and we requested initial due diligence information, which they provided. This was a proposal between Osmosis and Labs, and involved different maintenance responsibilities and involvement from the team to the one that is on the forums today. We did not agree on any final terms and made clear that we could not support a proposal without presenting the idea to the ICF council. After presenting the high-level idea to…

Excerpt (1196 of 4380 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

It’s mildly amusing seeing certain people use AI to argue against the very builders who helped make cosmos worth talking about in the first place.

I didn’t see much value in the stargaze proposal, but I fully support this idea! Of-course some alterations are needed. but this the first proposal in a long time, that actually makes sense, and worth pursuing.

Pleb here. So once you guys exit your osmo positions in the conversion do you still get paid through OGP too and get to milk us a little more over the next 6 years or how will the milking continue if this prop passes?

Team have built a profitable protocol with a P/E ratio of 5x. Forcing a merger at the market bottom based on a 30-day TWAP is nothing short of a ‘holder robbery.’ We must allow the protocol to navigate the upcoming bull cycle independently and realize its true valuation.

Vote - no

Emotions aside, this proposal doesn’t pass if Osmosis pretends its in a position of strength. And yet, I think a central vision for Cosmos with all dev activity moving to The Hub would be a huge concentration of energy. As someone looking to deploy a v2 soon, the idea of building on The Hub with Osmosis’ TVL migration and a merger of community incentives is envigorating. Atomic use of DeFi and NFTs also enables a lot more cool interactions, like actual NFTfi. The main issue here is that with the price of the merger + the technical migration, there is a lot of risk & the passing proposal should mitigate this risk for The Hub community so they can feel like that are making an investment and not jumping into a sinking ship. And a point to all disgruntled OSMO holders, if you don’t merge, you’ll get outsized revenue for all liquidity that stays onchain but you can’t expect this merger to 1) be a bail out, 2) give you the same upside as OSMO would. Yet I’d ask you to imagine what a strong ATOM would do to your portfolio either way. An ATOM with Cosmos Labs, OGP & Stargaze behind you. Obviously this proposal would be amazing for Osmosis and potentially great for The Hub, so…

Excerpt (1196 of 1334 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’m both an ATOM and OSMO holder yet I would vote NO on the current form for many reasons already shared by community members, cosmosLabs…

TBF this proposal is so far off and lacking so many things it should not even be put to vote in this current form

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to review and comment on the proposal so far. A few themes from community feedback have come up that I wanted to clarify. Cosmos Hub bloat and alignment The Cosmos Hub currently captures very little direct liquidity revenue since most Cosmos trading activity occurs on Osmosis. The modules being migrated from Osmosis are mature, production-tested infrastructure that has operated for several years across multiple market cycles. The goal of this integration is not to introduce experimental functionality but to consolidate a battle-tested liquidity venue closer to the Hub’s security and coordination layer. Once deployed, these modules are expected to operate largely as stable infrastructure rather than requiring frequent upgrades. Osmosis remains the primary liquidity venue for Cosmos assets, generating revenue and hosting active users and liquidity providers. The proposal is an infrastructure consolidation rather than a rescue of a failing protocol. If this merger does not pass, Osmosis will continue to operate as an independent, profitable chain, but margins may get tighter as the Cosmos Ecosystem continues to fragment and drift. As…

Excerpt (1197 of 3834 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

JohnnyWyles:

Net cost vs headline cost

The headline acquisition value does not fully represent the net economic impact. Osmosis DAO holdings and protocol-controlled assets would align with the Cosmos Hub following integration, offsetting a substantial portion of the cost and providing resources for future development. Additionally, based on historical holder activity, we estimate that roughly 80% of OSMO will actually claim during the exchange window, meaning the final ATOM spend may be lower than the maximum theoretical amount.

It is also worth noting that community pool grants often require selling ATOM into stable assets to fund operations. In contrast, a token swap distributes ATOM to existing ecosystem participants who have already been holding Cosmos ecosystem assets for some time, so the sell pressure profile will likely differ from that of a typical community spend proposal.

If merge will be done, I’m sell all atom immediately

I’m investing in OSMO!

AaronK:

Growth - ~2 ppl (Myself + OGP team)

Def. a solid team to manage growth and everything that can be done to push hard!

Was curious about the team myself and this sorts out the details.

JohnnyWyles:

Interestingly, feedback on this thread and on socials so far suggests that both the ATOM and OSMO communities feel the valuation is unfavourable to them, which, in practice, often indicates that the exchange ratio may be reasonably balanced.

I want to express I am more unhappy than Osmo holders.

Jk. You’re aware there’s more Atom holders?

I believe the discussion around a stronger alignment between Osmosis and the Cosmos Hub is legitimate. The Hub probably needs to find more effective ways to capture value generated across the ecosystem, and Osmosis has clearly played an important role in providing liquidity and economic activity within the interchain over the past years. However, the current structure of the proposal raises several questions. The scale of the commitment requested from the Hub — particularly the near-total use of the ATOM community pool — appears to be a very significant bet given the remaining uncertainties around liquidity migration and the sustainability of the projected revenues. The community pool took years to build and remains one of the few strategic tools available to the Hub to support its development, fund new initiatives, and help the ecosystem evolve over time. We can also recall that proposals involving a large use of the community pool — such as what was previously discussed around Hydro — raised significant concerns within the community and were ultimately not adopted, which in my view was a healthy outcome. It highlights how sensitive and important the prudent management of…

Excerpt (1197 of 1604 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Injecting another partial idea into the discourse.

What matters for evaluating the success of an Osmosis <> Hub merger is not liquidity or volume. What matters is spreads

If spreads relative to Binance are at the same level as today post merger or tighter than the merger was a success. If they are worse, the merger failed.

Hey, I want to clarify my understanding of “feedback given”. In my calls with Barry, Mag and Robo on the merge, contention on price did not come up. In fact, we were verbally expressed positive sentiment from CL that this could occur with only a small mint for an at market cap acquisition. We got to a text draft that the CL team was in favor of, and was going to convert into a slide deck and present it to the ICF board. The final ICF board conversation is a black box to us, but we know we got to economics and details that CL team was in favor of presenting to the board, and if approved by the board we’d begin talking to community ~immediately. The technicals and economics of the merge remain substantively the same since the conversations. CL reported to us that the ICF board was that they said no, and that it was primarily not for reasons that are specific to Osmosis, and instead on your end. We were communicated that it was in regards to the fact that CL needs to focus and demonstrate delivering on enterprise/fintech integrations. And that you’re not sure how this will relate back to the community, but the ICF board wants to focus on enterprise, rather than ecosystem. We…

Excerpt (1194 of 6398 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’m new to the cosmos hub ecosystem and have just recently participated in staking in other projects. After reading quite a few comments, both for and against, I’m not sure where I stand on the merger issue as I don’t really understand what the merger looks to accomplish. I’ll admit, it’s a bit over my head. So, I guess my first question being an decent ATOM staker is, how would the merger directly effect ATOM’s APR and appreciation potential. It was these 2 aspects that grabbed my attention as I believe i has others, which helps in the growth of the ecosystem. Anything that would diminish either of those would not help the cause.

In a summary,

Osmosis is asking about 20 million USD, which is more than the TVL on Osmosis.

I suggest you revise it.
Don’t migrate.
Instead, swap OSMO for AOTM and use AOTM as gas.
Is that sufficient? This is the simplest approach.

I suggest you revise it.
Don’t migrate.
Instead, swap OSMO for AOTM and use AOTM as gas.
Is that sufficient? This is the simplest approach.

We appreciate the effort that went into drafting this proposal and starting a discussion around deeper integration between Osmosis and the Cosmos Hub. At a strategic level, we believe the idea deserves consideration. Osmosis has become the main liquidity venue of the Cosmos ecosystem. Bringing that infrastructure closer to the Hub could strengthen the economic role of ATOM and reduce fragmentation across core services. From that perspective, the direction of the proposal is understandable. However, the financial structure currently proposed appears significantly overvalued and lacks the level of professional review that would normally be expected for a transaction of this magnitude. The conversion mechanism would allow circulating OSMO to migrate into ATOM based largely on recent market pricing. In practice, this places most of the financial risk on ATOM holders while providing OSMO holders with a relatively clear liquidity exit. For a transaction that would require issuing a meaningful amount of ATOM, the valuation framework presented feels too light and deserves a much deeper analysis. More broadly, full token mergers between two sovereign chains with very different…

Excerpt (1194 of 2034 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Community Pools are meant for spending Been reflecting on my perceived hesitancy by the voting bloc to spend from CPs. My opinion here: this situation is very different from, “run the finances like you run a household.” We’re all in a grand experiment together, to see if a community chain is a thing worthwhile for all involved. While it may sound judicious, I believe defaulting to “protect the CP don’t spend it or don’t spend much” is anachronous and borrowing too much from trad thinking. A couple years ago we saw a few CosmWasm chains crop up and gain excitement. Builders (who didn’t get anything from genesis) decided to build ideas on these small chains. There were CPs, and for a decent period of time, the token prices meant those pools had serious coin to spend and offer support. But I think it’s easier to debate in favor of frugality rather than spending. But some things aren’t easy to tease out. Seasoned and first-time founders, while grateful for the smaller grants, found that their efforts and rewards didn’t make a tremendous dent in their runway. So instead of building it becomes more like politics where you’re begging VCs and funds to believe in you, and nearly…

Excerpt (1194 of 3094 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

mikedotexe:

Being stingy on spending from CP isn’t like, a horrible way to think. And it’s defensible, like if you’re hanging out with your MBA friends. But this isn’t business school, nor is it similar to managing household finances. Community pools are meant to be spent. It’s fine if you disagree, I get it.

I think the Cosmos Hub community has moved past the phase of simply trying to prevent spending from the community pool. Today, the real question is how to spend it effectively and how to support multiple projects or teams at the same time.

A proposal that requires 110% of the community pool effectively limits us to a single project, and even requires exceptional inflation to fund it.

The negotiation should instead focus on reducing the requested amount, leaving room for other teams and initiatives to apply for funding. This would allow multiple projects to reach the community pool and deploy in parallel, which ultimately strengthens the ecosystem.

I support the merger and I won’t mind if the atom community pool is mostly used for this.

Tho I have some issues with the proposal to mint more atom out of thin air to pay for this. There should be another option. Maybe osmosis community pool or part of their revenue can be used to swap some of the osmo to atom, they could buy some atom with their usdc/btc whatever to help with the conversion for example.

Also; the osmosis dev’s are known to relentlessly dump their osmo token for the past months/years. I’m kinda worried they will swap their osmo to atom and immediately dump it all causing huge sell pressure on atom. Would it be possible to have a lock up period on the atom? Especially for the dev team wallets who will gain huge amounts. Or maybe buy them out with usdc instead of atom to avoid huge sell pressure? Pay them from osmosis community pool and blacklist their wallets from swapping to atom maybe even?

I honestly don’t know the best way forward but something has to be done. I like the idea, I want the merge to happen, but without minting extra atom & without too much risk of massive atom dumping after the swap

Agree with this take. Members have been encouraging Osmosis to join the Hub for years. Now the ecosystem is all but dead and Osmosis wants cash to dip.

bpiv400:

We have to grapple with the fact that the Osmosis DEX is not saving the OSMO token, and we don’t believe that it will save ATOM either.

Good summary and prescient point.

“blacklist their wallets” you’re out of line, ser. this is a community chain, let’s talk like it please

Read the context, I said blacklist from swapping their osmo for ATOM specifically after buying them out with USD, blacklist not to be taken literally here

The only goal of this whole ecosystem is to milk retail so builders can build. There is no community, and has not been for some time. If you read this proposal and think it’s meant to help the hub and its investors then I think you are mistaken.

mikedotexe:

Being stingy on spending from CP isn’t like, a horrible way to think. And it’s defensible, like if you’re hanging out with your MBA friends. But this isn’t business school, nor is it similar to managing household finances. Community pools are meant to be spent. It’s fine if you disagree, I get it.

I get what you’re saying, and I agree with the principle behind it. An actively utilized CP is better than simply having it sit dormant.

But there is more than a fine line between spending CP on a valuable project and blowing the entire thing on a single (and depreciating) protocol while also needing to mint extra Atom outside the standard emissions.

Why can’t Osmosis migrate the infra without merging the tokens? Reduced risk for everyone with very similar reward strucutres. Having both protocols building on the same chain will concentrate building and growth initiatives which is great for developers & partnerships. At this point staying as separate chains isn’t beneficial to either community as The Hub has DeFi bootstrapping friction (which it needs for IBC assets) & Osmosis is trying to get out of a maintenance mode and has additional integration/partnership friction by being a standalone chain. Personally as a dev trying to find a home in Cosmos through the chaos, I’d love to have a DeFi environment on The Hub, & Osmosis + OGP would be a strong lead for that. Cosmos Hub is taking a lot of risk in this initial proposal by “bailing out” OSMO holders on top of taking on technical integration risk and liquidity migration risk. OSMO holders are going to continue arguing about the conversion rate which will only make ATOM holders more hesitant to agree to this “merger”. My proposal is that there can be a technical merge only. No M&A purchase of OSMO from The Hub. No deleting OSMO (something that may hinder future OSMO…

Excerpt (1197 of 1825 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

bpiv400: But my job is the boring one, doing the analysis, checking if it stands the test of time, and sharing hard feedback instead of just acting bullish and throwing money at things, no questions asked. Full disclosure: I’m the founder of Ark Protocol. We’ve built cross-chain NFTs and contributed in more than 3 years in Cosmos, key contributors to core standards like cw-nfts and cw-ics721. I’m not active in Cosmos anymore, have nothing to gain from writing this. There’s something I need to say: Accountability Mag and Barry founded Skip. In Dec. '24 ICF acquired Skip - for an undisclosed sum. Rumors says around $20M each for both, the community has the right to know, when both claiming this proposal is too expensive. Those same founders are now the ones questioning how others want to use CP funds? Imho that’s bold - looking at how much collateral they/CosmosLabs have created since: • April 2025, ICF invested in Stride building a DEX for the Hub • Stride were almost done. Then in July, ICL (aka CosmosLab) killed the Hub’s EVM plans . Stride could not launch and had to move away. • their decision led to a builder exodus by many teams • Their reasoning?…

Excerpt (1195 of 1539 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

bpiv400:

throwing money at things, no questions asked.

Mag: [“We are a startup, we have to act like one. That’s the reality. Pivot fast, pivot early.”](https://x.com/0xMagmar/status/1945122937498915078)

mr-t:

their decision led to a builder exodus by many teams

image690×219 28.5 KB

mr-t:

Mag and Barry founded Skip. In Dec. '24 ICF acquired Skip - for an undisclosed sum. Rumors says around $20M each for both, the community has the right to know, when both claiming this proposal is too expensive.

What has the price of Skips acquisition by the ICF to do with Osmosis buyout with the CP (plus mint)?

Doesn’t make sense. You can ask if they’ve been worth their money, sure, but it’s not like they’ve been acquired with CP funds.

The community wasn’t mad interested for 15 months to knowing the exact amount of money they’ve gotten, so why now?

Apples and oranges.

Hi everyone, I’m new here, but I’m not new to tech and am an OG cryptography guy. In 1998, back when the world was still figuring out how to download an MP3, my team and I were busy encrypting over a million songs in DES 56-bit for the first legal music streaming service, Rhapsody . At one point, I was responsible for more encrypted files than anyone else in the world. I’m working on a new business model for a payment ecosystem that will use Cosmos, and I believe it offers a new approach to the current “COSMOSIS” debate. Reading through the proposal from @sunnya97 and the Osmosis Foundation, it’s clear we all share the same goal: making the Cosmos Hub the undeniable economic center of the interchain. @sunnya97 , you are right that stack usage isn’t enough; we need “legible” value for ATOM. However, as @Guinch_Roze and @artemkorchemniy have pointed out, a state-level merger brings massive technical debt and risks “logic contamination” for the Hub. I’d like to introduce a significantly different way to think about our ecosystem’s tokenomics: Multi-Tenant Collateral Anchoring (MTCA). Instead of a merger, think of the Cosmos Hub as a Global Industrial Business Park : •…

Excerpt (1195 of 3080 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

mr-t: Accountability Mag and Barry founded Skip. In Dec. '24 ICF acquired Skip - for an undisclosed sum. Rumors says around $20M each for both, the community has the right to know, when both claiming this proposal is too expensive. When ICF acquired Skip, Mag and Barry stayed on the team and continued to lead. In this acquisition, Sonny and core people aren’t staying. Also, this is a prop regarding spending Community Pool (that no one directly owns) funds to acquire Osmosis. We’re here to discuss the community pool spend. Not what the ICF or CL did or didn’t do. While this isn’t specifically directed at your comment, it seems an argument people are trying to make is ICF’s operations have been questionable, therefore we should put more weight on Sunny’s perspective. I get it, we all love Osmosis. But I fail to see a strong connection between the sentiment on ICF and what this prop is saying. Other than CL expressing opposition and being the most prominent entity to do so. Makes one wonder though…so if CL said they are in alignment to this prop, will people still be saying “oh, well, ICF did this back in the day, let’s question the validity of what they are…

Excerpt (1195 of 1261 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I think a big question to takeaway from the “exodus of many teams” is probably very simply… “Do ATOM holders want to place all their eggs in one basket” Does Cosmos Hub want an ecosystem that directly drives value to ATOM and takes initiative itself, or whether it is willing to rely entirely on the CL team’s enterprise strategy to eventually produce value accrual. On the current path, ecosystem development around ATOM and cosmos hub is zero, and in the short / medium term is on a death march. While there is real hope that CL team’s enterprise efforts eventually bear fruit, it is not logical to place all eggs there… especially when the tradeoffs are low and the parallel efforts are totally feasible. Over the past five years, relying on that approach (putting all eggs on ICF) has not been the right bet. This proposal represents the Cosmos and ATOM community taking initiative now, firing up it’s ecosystem efforts and making its own fate with renewed ecosystem growth that can not only foster a traditional DeFi ecosystem but also equally an enterprise ecosystem. Solana is doing this and winning the majority of the pie currently. Cosmos could be a key player in this race, but…

Excerpt (1196 of 1275 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

@AaronK - You make a good point. I think diversification is the key to a resilient ecosystem. The enterprise focus might be the right answer, but there’s no reason to limit the options to just that one.

Read through the prop and the comments. TBH Cosmos Hub has needed a real native economic engine for a long time & yeah Osmosis in-house is the most logical way to get there.

Looking at how the broader industry is evolving, the most successful L1s have deep integrated liquidity right at their center. I mean sovereign chains are great for experimenting, but the Hub itself has been missing direct value capture.

But the numbers have to work for ATOM holders just as much as they work for OSMO holders. If that gets worked out, this is a no brainer.

I fully support the overall direction & will even willing to spread the word for support .

@AaronK

Right, but ironically this proposal is putting all CP eggs in one basket.

I’ve always wondered just how much money you and other devs have already made off of Osmosis. Shouldn’t that be important information? Have you not been compensated well already? It’s obvious that the Osmo team have contributed a ton to ecosystem, I’m not arguing that, I’m wondering how much money you all have already been paid for it. Is that public info?

And surprisingly enough, the osmo death march is here and wants a bailout. A dex that paid out rewards in the underlying token and ultimately failed because there wasn’t enough demand to exceed the dumping. We want to yolo the community pool into this? Why would the fate of atom be any different from osmo in this scenario? Am I missing something?

If a merger is to take place, then this must be changed @AaronK @sunnya97 @JohnnyWyles

1000021917556×477 20.2 KB

Well no it’s not, there’s

• ~ $1m in USDC
• ~ $5m that governance has authority over that Osmosis will bring
• tokenomics that still delivers ATOM to the CP
• Immediate revenue that Cosmos Hub owns going forward

So how many atoms are left in the hubs CP?

The difference between ATOM or USDC doesn’t matter, they’re both assets within the CP meant to be used for ecosystem pursuits. If you believe the community pool should have more left in it, then a higher ratio of mint to CP can easily address that.

What is the value of assets that you believe should remain in the CP at all times?

I don’t know why you’re arguing, you basically proved my point which is that the prop asks the CP to put all eggs in the basket.

Yes but in this case I’d argue the “basket” is all of Cosmos DeFi, present and future.

1. This statement is false in numerous ways
2. Even if #1 were true, it is not the same argument because the CP is not all that is ATOM or Cosmos Hub.

Yeah, the CP needs to make a bet, and the Osmosis merge is not just a ‘hey this is a place to trade assets’. The merge is the only place to start any growth from, from there all doors open.

But even so, it’s still not all eggs on Osmosis.

• The Cosmos Hub Community Pool currently holds ~10.11M ATOM.
• This means approximately 85% of the required ATOM is already funded.
• The remaining ~1.75M ATOM represents ~0.35% of total ATOM supply.
• This is equivalent to less than two weeks of staking emissions.

It’s not rocket science Aaron.

Spending all of the CPs Atoms on this prop and still needing 1.75M Atoms means that the whole CP (‘Eggs’) is gone (in the ‘basket’).

Don’t hang yourself up on my comparison but especially don’t act like it’s not true.

sunnya97:

The additional ATOM required will be minted one time during the same upgrade that integrates Osmosis modules into the Hub. No ongoing emissions or structural inflation changes are introduced by this proposal.

I don’t like this.

Only less than 2 weeks of inflation is the justification for this.

It doesn’t change the fact that it is an example of governance overriding / undermining tokenomics. While structural inflation doesn’t change, we are still potential voting ATOMs into existence.

Bad precedence to set.

I agree with this conclusion, I just think you guys are talking past each other, both are right.

It is correct that:

1. that 100% of the CP is being used to buy Osmosis in this proposal.
2. the purchase of Osmosis also comes with ~6M of non-ATOM assets added to The Hub’s control
3. The Hub increases its bets from just Cosmos Lab’s BD/partnerships to include OGP BD & onchain Hub DeFi with this merge.

I think we can agree on these?

​Hello Cosmos Community, ​I am writing this as a long-term ATOM holder who is deeply concerned about the current “COSMOSIS” merger proposal. While I appreciate the goal of consolidating liquidity, I believe the current merger plan places an excessive burden on the Hub’s Community Pool and introduces unnecessary systemic risk. ​Instead of a full-scale acquisition that risks depleting our treasury and diluting governance, I believe the Hub should consider a more surgical approach: a 5M ATOM deployment into Hydro’s Inflow vault. ​ Why I advocate for this over the merger: • ​ Capital Preservation: Unlike a merger, which effectively “spends” the treasury, a deployment into Hydro allows the Hub to maintain ownership of its principal. This keeps the Community Pool solvent for future critical infrastructure needs. • ​ Flexibility vs. Permanent Commitment: We are currently in a volatile market. A 5M ATOM deployment allows the Hub to act as a “Liquidity Provider of Last Resort,” providing the ability to reallocate capital where it is most needed as the ecosystem evolves, rather than locking it into a single DEX architecture that may or may not succeed. • ​ Risk-Adjusted…

Excerpt (1197 of 1808 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hey! Thanks for the proposal!

We really do like the idea of the Cosmos Hub DEX and we really do like the Osmosis as a product - Cosmos needs its own DEX to have new utilities for $ATOM and cashflow.

However, the economiс part doesn’t look like a win/win deal due to high price, uncertain future incomes and lack of tech info about the migration.

As the result, it would be very helpful to see more structured proposal to make a final decision

Wrong thread buddy .. lol

The Osmosis side text will specify this, but we will edit it into the text here before proposing too.

Inflation of OSMO itself would end with the merger, rendering these meaningless.

Why would they release this? He’s not gonna answer you. They wanna maximize what’s left of their holdings and convert straight to atom so they can dump and exit, which is the only reason this proposal is being suggested at all. The rest of it is just a bunch of buzzwords as far as I’m concerned.

I appreciate the ambition behind this proposal and the amount of work that clearly went into it. I also agree with an important part of the diagnosis: the Cosmos Hub needs a clearer and more durable connection between ecosystem growth and ATOM’s long-term economic relevance. In that sense, I do not think this proposal is addressing a trivial issue. That said, I do not support the proposal in its current form. My concern is not that Osmosis has been unimportant to Cosmos. It has clearly played a major role as a liquidity venue in the ecosystem, and the proposal is right to point out that the Hub today lacks a substantial, recurring, attributable revenue stream of its own. My concern is narrower, but more important: I do not believe the proposal has yet shown that this particular transaction, in this particular structure, is sufficiently justified from the Cosmos Hub’s perspective. The first issue is structural. The Hub is being asked to make a relatively concrete commitment, while the most important economic outcomes remain uncertain. The proposal states that approximately 665.1M OSMO would be eligible to convert into ATOM over a six-month window. It also states that full…

Excerpt (1195 of 7866 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

At first, I was against merging the tokens, but honestly - at this point I just don’t care anymore.

Both tokens are already heading toward zero, so this decision won’t really change anything. It’s just cosmetic, not an actual fix.

In practice, token mergers almost always end up hurting the price. People like to believe in the narrative of “immutable” blockchain projects, but reality quickly proves otherwise - everything can be changed by a decision of a few large holders or the core team. So much for that so-called “decentralization.”

As far as I’m concerned, this chapter is closed. I accept the losses on ATOM and OSMO as a lesson, and I see the entire Cosmos ecosystem as something that has simply gone off the rails.

Goodbye - time to move capital somewhere that still makes sense.

In many comments, I’ve seen opinions from what I believe are investors who bought ‘high,’ sold at a loss, and then turned their backs on the market in resentment. I used to be one of them—I completely gave up on crypto for two whole years. However, we need to realize that this isn’t just about Cosmos and Osmosis. The entire market has crashed, and the global economy is at a stage where investors are retreating to safe havens. Even the ‘immortal’ Bitcoin, our digital gold and the supposed future of global monetary policy, dropped from €100,000 to around €60,000. I’m not a developer, a scientist, or an IT specialist. I’m just an investor who cares about the Cosmos ecosystem. Despite that, I believe the community should stand together right now. Instead of bickering over whether the fusion is right or wrong, our discussions should primarily focus on the details that could actually help put the entire ecosystem back on its feet. Otherwise, what’s the plan? Are we just going to keep fighting over whether OSMO holders are profiting off ATOM, or whether ATOM holders are leeching off Osmosis? If that’s the case, validators might as well shut down their nodes, developers can stop…

Excerpt (1193 of 1417 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmos hub will benefit from EUREKA DEX soon …

The event of the acquisition or merge is Cosmosis and the DEX name could be Eureka

Merge, hope, and figure it out later when it doesn’t work. That is the plan.

Osmosis is getting crushed. TVL is down around $16–19M, OSMO is hovering near $0.03, and volumes have dried up in this Cosmos winter.

And now the COSMOSIS merger wants to pull roughly 11.8M ATOM from the community pool, plus print fresh tokens, just to take over a DEX that’s already fading out.

That’s a bad deal.

Instead of spending $22M trying to save something on the way down, why not use half of that, around 5 to 6M ATOM, to build a new DEX directly on the Hub? New code, new interface, no baggage, full ATOM control, and actual upside.

Enough with bailout logic. Stop trying to revive dead weight and build something that can still win…

i wonder about the following (no hard go at anyone here, just some hard realities):

1. Osmo token is pretty much dead (not an osmosis issue per se, more like design issue of any major dex that didnt get enough adoption

2. yes, the deal “the community”, but those are just words

3. the cost of developing a DEX is not 20+ million USD

4. when and after osmosis team leaves the project (i understood thats inevitable), the network effect will go into play. People will go to the dex that works and has more liquidity

5. so im really not getting this. once upon a time osmosis were the market leaders. thats not true anymore

6. genuine question. why buy a dying cat in a bag and nail another coffin in a struggling project (atom, yes it is)

7. imo there is *10000 more hype about all this, than pausing to think the reality. this woudl have made sense (for a lot more money btw) some years ago, then it would have benefited both.

8. 20+ million USD is a fckng insane amount. thats like a huge vc round. you can buy a lot more with this

According to you (the Osmosis team), isn’t Duality cleaner in terms of code and optimization? I’ve heard that might be the case.

If so, why not just fork Duality and migrate Osmosis liquidity onto it? I’d really appreciate your honest opinion on this.

@sunnya97 @JohnnyWyles @AaronK

I don’t think anyone on our team has said that because we have never really looked closely at the Duality codebase. I’m sure the duality code is decent but the Osmosis codebase has way more lindyness, works with the Osmosis frontend, and has many many existing integrations with market makers, CoinGecko, TradingView, Keplr, etc.

Valid concerns on the maintenance front. From an operator perspective, absorbing a full DEX codebase into the Hub means every validator now carries that execution load: state bloat, query complexity, upgrade coordination. We run bare metal across both chains and the operational reality is that codebase mergers always cost more than the proposal estimates. The real question isn’t “can we maintain it” but “who maintains it when the original team moves on?” We’ve seen this pattern before in Cosmos. If COSMOSIS passes, the Hub validator set needs a clear SLA on Osmosis module maintenance, not just a handoff.

If anything, the hub should be actively developing a dex to compete with Osmosis since everyone is apparently ok with a dex on the hub now. Cheaper (and funnier) than this buyout of a failed product.

Personally, I’ve always wanted to see a merge between Osmosis and the Hub, and this makes a lot of sense to me. Osmosis has always been the economic center of Cosmos, and merging the two will make the Hub stronger. There needs to be a serious discussion about this of course.

That said, there needs to be alignment between Cosmos Labs and the Osmosis team. I would like to see both parties in the same room, agree on terms, and then bring something on-chain. That would be the easiest path.

Consolidation is the right move, it just needs more discussion between the two parties.

​Hello Cosmos Community, ​I am writing this as a long-term ATOM holder who is deeply concerned about the current “COSMOSIS” merger proposal. While I appreciate the goal of consolidating liquidity, I believe the current merger plan places an excessive burden on the Hub’s Community Pool and introduces unnecessary systemic risk. ​Instead of a full-scale acquisition that risks depleting our treasury and diluting governance, I believe the Hub should consider a more surgical approach: a 5M ATOM deployment into Hydro’s Inflow vault. ​ Why I advocate for this over the merger: • ​ Capital Preservation: Unlike a merger, which effectively “spends” the treasury, a deployment into Hydro allows the Hub to maintain ownership of its principal. This keeps the Community Pool solvent for future critical infrastructure needs. • ​ Flexibility vs. Permanent Commitment: We are currently in a volatile market. A 5M ATOM deployment allows the Hub to act as a “Liquidity Provider of Last Resort,” providing the ability to reallocate capital where it is most needed as the ecosystem evolves, rather than locking it into a single DEX architecture that may or may not succeed. • ​ Risk-Adjusted…

Excerpt (1197 of 1808 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

​ Hi Everyone, ​With the current COSMOSIS proposal seeing significant pushback over the 11.8M ATOM community spend and the “squeeze-out” of the OSMO token, it is becoming clear that a full merger might not be the path the Hub wants to take. ​I believe we should pivot to a model that respects Sovereignty while ensuring Value Accrual for ATOM. If this merger fails, we should not abandon the partnership, but instead move to a Revenue-Sharing / Rent model. ​ Why a 25% Fee-Share is better than a Merger: • ​ Protect the Hub Treasury: We don’t need to mint 1.75M new ATOM or drain the community pool to “buy” Osmosis. ATOM remains scarce, and we avoid the inflationary baggage. • ​ Real Revenue for ATOM: Based on Osmosis’s $5.5M revenue last year, a 25% “Security Rent” would bring ~$1.37M in real-yield fees directly to ATOM stakers or the Treasury. • ​ No “Zombie” Tokens: OSMO remains the governance and utility token for its chain. This keeps the Osmosis community engaged and motivated to grow the DEX, rather than forcing them into a conversion they don’t want. • ​ Risk Isolation: If the Hub acts as the “Landlord” renting out Interchain Security (ICS), we capture the…

Excerpt (1197 of 1657 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I think this proposal is solving the right problem, but at the wrong layer. The hub does need a real value accrual model for atom. I agree with that part, but buying or absorbing one successful appchain is not the same as building a durable moat. It may import revenue but it does not create an interchain choke point that the rest of the ecosystem is naturally pushed to use. To me, the stronger path is to make the hub the neutral execution and risk layer for the interchain. That means auctioning cross chain execution rights: routing, solver flow, liquidations, arbitrage bundles and intent settlement. Access to that flow should require atom bonds. And part of the fees should build a reserve or backstop for failed fills, bridge risk or cross chain settlement failures. That is a much stronger model than “put the biggest dex on the hub” It also preserves sovereignty better. Chains would not need to love the hub or pay a tax for existing. They would use it because it gives them better execution also lower tail risk and better capital efficiency. So my view is simple: atom should sit where interchain ordering, collateral and backstop concentrate. The hub should own the rails, not just…

Excerpt (1196 of 1237 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

The Hub doesn’t have cross-chain rights to auction.

To get execution rights it’ll need to build up its execution environment which should start on The Hub with a DEX.

I am not saying the hub already has something to auction and i do not mean any pre existing entitlement. I mean protocol level access to interchain flow like routing, solver competition, liquidations, arbitrage and intent settlement. That only exists if you build the coordination layer where that flow clears. Yes, the hub needs execution environment and dex can help bootstrap it but dex is still one venue. Venues are replaceable. Liquidity moves, volume moves. Owning a venue is not the same as owning the rail. If the hub just buys osmosis it may import revenue but it still does not create a reason for the rest of the interchain to route through atom. The stronger model is to make the hub the neutral execution and risk layer where routers solvers and liquidators compete for flow post atom bonds and rely on shared settlement guarantees. So i am not against dex on the hub. I am saying the dex is a bootstrap not the moat

So Zaki’s Atom intents is the way in your opinion ?

Yes, closer to that but only if atom intents is built as the neutral interchain execution plus risk layer, not just another app. A dex can help bootstrap it but the real moat is atom securing routing, solver flow, settlement and backstop not simply owning one venue

Update: Revised Tokenomics & Liquidity Alignment Following feedback from validators and ecosystem participants, we’ve updated the proposal to address the primary concern around ATOM minting and better align incentives during the transition. Key changes 1. Removal of ATOM minting The proposal no longer introduces any new ATOM supply. The acquisition is now structured to still be funded primarily from the Cosmos Hub Community Pool, but with the remaining portion sourced over time through protocol revenue. 2. Revenue-backed acquisition model Any remaining conversion will be funded using revenue generated from both: • the Cosmos Hub DEX deployment, and • the legacy Osmosis chain during the migration period This revenue will be used to purchase ATOM on the open market to fund OSMO → ATOM conversion. This introduces a performance-linked structure, where part of the acquisition cost is funded through realized protocol activity. 3. Extended conversion window The conversion window has been extended to one year to allow: • gradual, user-driven migration • sufficient time for revenue to fund the remaining conversion • a more orderly transition overall…

Excerpt (1196 of 2468 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Personallyi think i will support it this way, I can understand people still have issues with using the whole community pool, but tbh i would rather use it for something useful and be done with it then have it just laying around with no use.

I like how the remaining 15% needed will be sourced from revenue instead of minting new atom! That was my main concern anyway.

Maybe @cosmoslabs can take a look again? Maybe there is room for a counter prop where instead of 85% from CP and 15% from revenue it can be changed to 50-50 or 60-40, i don’t know the math to calculate how long it would take to fund 50 or 40% of the costs from revenue tho, just an idea

I cannot support this. The ‘performance-linked’ component is too dependent on future DEX volume which is never guaranteed. We are essentially locking the Hub into a long-term liability based on speculative revenue. I prefer to see Osmosis remain independent and continue its own burn/fee model without intertwining its fate so deeply with the Hub’s governance and treasury

The “performance-linked” component is locking OSMO holders not ATOM holders. There is essentially no cost outside of the CP for ATOM since Osmosis will be paying OSMO holder’s conversion in purchased ATOM from its revenue. This raises a new issue though where conversion shouldn’t become a race & the rate should be 85% for everyone with the remaining 15% of the conversion rate being filled in by revenue collectively for everyone. The idea that there will be OSMO that isn’t able to convert is not fair and should be removed, if not, the last to convert have to be the team’s OSMO. This essentially reduces The Hub’s cost by 15% (or however much is paid for by revenue) & replaces the cost with capped buyback demand. Which begs the question of why even do the buyback in the first place? Its good for alignment but its not a cost to The Hub so at most it gives value back to OSMO holders that they were already getting with the current buyback method. Additionally, what will the Osmosis deployment suite do with its revenue post-merge and post-buyback? Using it to buyback anything after this proposal is fulfilled will only harm growth potential. I’m also concerned that the buyback…

Excerpt (1195 of 1505 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Sounds like a very plausible option worth considering.

I appreciate the revision in #127 . Removing the one time atom mint is clearly an improvement. But I still think it fixes the optics more than the core economics. Using current on chain numbers atom has about 501.8M supply and roughly 10% inflation, so the system is still adding around 50.18M atom per year. Even if we grant the proposal its own revenue case for Osmosis at roughly $5.5M per year that only works out to about $0.011 per atom per year. At $5 atom that is roughly 0.22% annual revenue yield. At $10 it is about 0.11%. Even at $1 it is only about 1.1%. That is not enough to support the claim that Osmosis revenue meaningfully repairs atom tokenomics. It may add some buy pressure but it does not solve the monetary problem. The structure is also still asymmetric. The treasury commitment is concrete, while liquidity migration remains voluntary and the revenue leg remains uncertain. So the hub is still being asked to make a large, specific commitment in exchange for outcomes that are not guaranteed. My second concern is strategic. A dex on the hub can be useful as a bootstrap, but a dex is a venue, not a moat. Venues are replaceable. Liquidity moves. Volume moves. Owning…

Excerpt (1193 of 1782 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Here are my final and honest thoughts as an ATOM and OSMO investor about the Cosmosis proposal. I really want the merge to happen, because Osmosis is a great product, has been the real hub of the old vision of Cosmos , and is culturally part of the interchain. I do think that implementing Osmosis code into Gaia drives value to the Cosmos Hub . Although Osmosis has been declining for the past year and a half, its revenues depend on volume, and having such a strong DEX already built and coupling it to the next ATOM vision is quite exciting. Two points make this choice difficult: 1. The lack of transparency from @cosmoslabs and the ICF about that new vision. We still, as a community, are waiting for clarity about the new ATOM plan from these two entities. • 1.1 I’d be happy to have more information about the ICF and see them cease the sale of ATOM for Cosmos Labs operations. I’d like to see them make a real arbitrage from the BTC and ETH in their treasury and support ATOM price with buybacks. That would be a good signal from the foundation that the ATOM token actually matters in their plan to expand the Cosmos stack into the enterprise and institutions sphere . I really…

Excerpt (1196 of 3965 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This proposal is absolutely terrible. It’s just a dead project trying to use $ATOM token holders as exit liquidity. Why on earth should we agree to this? If the $OSMO token is no longer useful, it should just go to zero. What gives them the right to expect $ATOM holders to foot the bill?

The lack of visibility, whether on the Osmosis side or Cosmos Labs’ side, does not allow for an accurate assessment of the viability of such a merge. On one hand, the arguments put forward to justify the acquisition price of Osmosis are based on a past that is more impressive than the current reality. There is no guarantee that liquidity will follow the migration, no guarantee that the fees generated won’t drastically decrease after the merge, and if liquidity becomes fragmented between the Hub and Osmosis, it will significantly increase slippage, leading to a loss of confidence from LPs and market makers. On the other hand, the lack of communication from Cosmos Labs, the wait for the new tokenomics and the team that will be responsible for it, the lack of visibility regarding Atom’s role in potential deals, the fact that the ICF continues to dump its Atoms without rebalancing its holdings between Atom, BTC, and ETH—all of this leaves the community with a bitter taste and effectively blindfolded. As too often in Cosmos, things happen behind the scenes without the community having access to the information it needs—and should be given. A blind community is a doubtful…

Excerpt (1190 of 2809 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’ve been following the discussion closely, and it seems like most of the debate focuses on structure (merger vs sovereignty, governance, migration details).

But I think the more fundamental question is economic:

Where does value actually accrue in this model?

The proposal clearly improves coordination and may concentrate liquidity, which is valuable. But increased activity or volume on the Hub does not automatically translate into durable value capture for ATOM.

If the core economics remain tied to a DEX layer, then the risk is that value continues to depend on a competitive and mobile venue, rather than on a mechanism that makes ATOM structurally necessary.

So beyond the merger itself, it would be helpful to clarify:

- What is the long-term mechanism through which ATOM captures value from interchain activity?

- How does this go beyond simply hosting a liquidity venue?

- What ensures that value accrual is tied to the Hub, rather than to any specific application deployed on it?

Without a clear answer to that, there is a risk that we improve coordination without fundamentally solving the value capture problem the Hub has faced for years.

(post deleted by author)

I find this proposal absurd from an economic standpoint. The founder of Osmosis wants to exit (he already has) by selling his stake at a fixed price. I suggest he sell his OSMOs at market price and get a couple hundred thousand dollars instead of a couple tens of millions. I watched the entire interview, and he doesn’t even hide the fact that the migration project is doomed. Well, because no one will develop it, and he himself is interested in AI.

Pochemu token OSMO ukatalsya v pol? Da potomu chto tam 40% emissii shlo v karman razrabotchikam. Razrabotchiki regulyarno lili v stakan. Tsene OSMO ne pomoglo dazhe pomeshcheniye tokena v portfel’ krupnogo fonda (okolo dvukh let nazad). A seychas lit’ uzhe ne mogut, potomu chto likvidnosti nol’. I vot oni prishli syuda. Da, eto bagovannaya svapalka bez problem budet migrirovana. No dal’neyshey razrabotki ne budet. Ono prosto tikho sdokhnet. A razraby svapalki poluchat likvidnost’ za schet kholderov Atoma dlya svoikh novykh proyektov (osmosis eto vtoroy proyekt i on khochet nachat’ tretiy). A kholdery Atoma ostanutsya s pustym pulom. Samoye zabavnoye, chto dannyy propozl skoreye vsego proydet. Potomu chto nalitso zakulisnyye podkupy validatorov (v interv’yu tol’ko i mel’kalo chto ya gvoroil s validatorami, krupnyye validatory, validatory reshat bez Kosmos Labs i vso v etom dukhe). Pozhaluy tol’ko parazitnaya fraza YU nou upotreblyalos’ chashche chem slovo validator. Vsya nadezhda tol’ko na to, chto golosa prodazhnykh validatrov budut pereopredeleny kholderami. Ещё 1 016 Why did the OSMO token disappear? Because 40% of the supply went to the developers. The developers…

Excerpt (1190 of 2239 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’d like to highlight a point that seems central to me.

Even without minting, a large ATOM distribution can still create sell pressure if it is not properly structured.

In a simple scenario, distributing 2–3M ATOM without vesting or alignment mechanisms could already lead to this risk.
At the scale of ~10M ATOM, this becomes even more critical.

Removing minting does not remove market pressure.

Before even debating the acquisition itself, I believe we should first address a more fundamental question:

how do we ensure that a large ATOM distribution does not result in immediate or structural selling pressure?

Additionally, if this deal makes economic sense, it should be able to fund itself through future DEX revenues, rather than relying on a large upfront use of the community pool.

This would better align cost with actual performance, while limiting risk for the Hub.

Even beyond sell pressure, the broader question of value capture for ATOM remains open

The prop will most likely pass and Sunny will move onto the next grift. It’s funny reading this whole thread because I can’t tell if people actually believe any of the shit they are saying or if they are just paid shills.

I have been following this thread closely, and I see a lot of polarization on both sides. A move of this magnitude needs to be evaluated with a cool head and shouldn’t be taken lightly. As other members have already pointed out, there are viable alternatives on the table that could satisfy a large majority. If these alternative options aren’t explored and taken seriously, we run the risk of the community feeling that something shady is going on—giving the impression that the debate ended before it even began, and that the decision was already made behind closed doors. Furthermore, on a personal note, I believe the founders should take a step back and remember why Cosmos was built in the first place: what the original vision was, and how we intended to achieve it by always guaranteeing the community a real voice and vote. Let’s remember our roots. After so much evolution in our ecosystem, we cannot afford to take a step backward in our governance. I am not looking to pick a side in this confrontation (I made my choice and my investment a long time ago), but I truly value this diversity of opinions. Often, it’s the friction between different ideas that creates the spark…

Excerpt (1195 of 1590 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Screenshot 2026-04-09 1120011427×496 35.5 KB

That’s exactly the problem with the Hub. To change just three tiny parameters in the tokenomics, they demand a full study with a public tender and it takes over six months just to choose the firms that are going to do the work.

But when it comes to merging a DEX that’s going to cost an absolute fortune ($20 million) and could easily become a burden for the Hub, they just decided it on the fly with a rushed vote.
Beats me!

darkyadoo:

decided it on the fly with a rushed vote.
Beats me!

let alone having changed the voting parameters to have similar cases further expedited, but I digress.

@sunnya97 Firstly, thank you for all you’ve done for the Cosmos, as a whole. Adjusting the proposal, by removing additional inflation, specifically, is extremely appreciated. However, to utilize the entire Cosmos Hub’s community pool +, for a merger, is not the answer, in my opinion.

I view the goal of joining forces between communities as being fully achievable, without a need to be “bought out.” Some, and certain individuals, may be enticed to do so, but I know the our ecosystem, as a whole, is different and built much better than that.

Fully support the effort of combining the Hub and Osmosis communities, but not through this merger. Keep the Hub as minimal as possible.

*Despite the proposal already being live, to add my own two cents, it would have been intriguing to see OSMO potentially serving as the fee token, preserving ATOM to serve with its original design as stake.

Voted NO for putting the proposal on-chain and voting YES with Sikka validator and Keplr which is cofounder of Osmosis that is a conflict of interest. Also by asking Aurel from Dokia, Cito and others to vote quickly yes just after proposal is on-chain to give false impression of general support of the proposal

We vote No on this proposal.

Reason: this proposal is politically misaligned. The Cosmos slogan is “The Internet of Blockchains” and we fully support it. The Hub should remain the center of the ecosystem without absorbing services developed within it.

Even if Osmosis were sold to Cosmos for just $1, we would still oppose it. We believe this deal is incorrect specifically from a political standpoint within the ecosystem.

The ecosystem should grow through the creation of new services, not by absorbing existing ones.
Every action taken by the Hub sets a precedent, it becomes an example for the entire ecosystem. If the Hub starts acquiring services around it, this will shape a strategy for developers: build with the intention of selling to the Hub.
We are not saying this is necessarily bad, but it is not what the ecosystem was originally created for.

As for the Pool, these funds would be better spent on developing the Hub’s own ideas and initiatives (showing everybody how many good ideas are in Hub), rather than on acquiring projects within the ecosystem.

Corrupt, lousy voting. The co-founders vote YES. Within minutes. Corrupt StakeSito, too. I hate corruption. And what’s happening here is simply the Osmosis founder leaving the ecosystem, eager to line his own pockets for new projects.

To the Osmosis founder: leaving? Go! Sell your coins at the market price! On Binance! You’re too smart, you want to leave and sell your coins at the expense of someone else’s liquidity.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Again posting here to give my thoughts on the most important things to consider for the merge, as one of the core devs for the past nearly 3 years, and nearly 6 in cosmos land. COSMOSIS Acquires Real ATOM Sinks One thing I want to highlight that I think is being underweighted in this discussion: this merger doesn’t just bring revenue to the Hub — it brings permanent supply sinks for ATOM and a taker fee revenue sharing model that can be pointed directly at institutional partners. That’s a fundamentally different economic primitive than what the Hub has today. How ATOM Gets Taken Off the Market The Osmosis fee infrastructure has three built-in sink mechanisms that would directly apply to ATOM post-merger: • Taker Fee Burns — Taker fees can be distributed to stakers and the community pool, or burned. Osmosis governance currently burns 70% of OSMO taker fees and 52.5% of non-OSMO taker fees by sending them to a null address, permanently removing them from supply. Applied to ATOM, every swap on the Hub DEX would permanently shrink ATOM’s circulating supply. • ProtoRev Burns — The ProtoRev module captures cyclic…

Excerpt (1193 of 8974 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

A DEX with maintainers and liquidity migrating will also open up the DeFi eco on The Hub, making it a true port city as Eureka assets flow in, transact & trade, then flow out or set up their own merchant hubs.

For one, I’ll be launching Membrane v2 as soon as the migration is finanlized & the product is ready, giving The Hub a competitive lending product immediately. It’ll entice borrowers with structual differences that create lower overall costs, allow liquidation delays and segment lending risks to attract different profiles of capital.

This migration starts with Osmosis, but it’ll fertilize the space for all DeFi, including a decentralizied stablecoin ready to launch with no grants, no funding, pure passion. I’ve been building in Cosmwasm for 4 years now and I don’t plan on going anywhere.

The Hub’s DeFi will need competitive products to expand upon the IBC asset value prop & Membrane v2 fits into structural lending wedges that will eventually compete with the likes of Aave and Morpho.

I appreciate the detailed technical breakdown, but speaking from an investor’s perspective, there is a fundamental problem with this approach: we are justifying a multi-million dollar acquisition based on theoretical scenarios and highly optimistic projections, rather than looking at reality. Assuming ratios where $100,000 in liquidity generates $1 million in constant daily volume is, frankly, dressing up the numbers to make the formula look like a guaranteed success. If we are throwing around utopian hypotheses, I could also claim that ATOM will easily return to €45, but serious financial decisions are not made on illusions or assumptions. If we want to do things right, avoid being hypocritical, and not deceive the community with these figures, we must bring forward previous case studies of similar situations in the crypto space: both those that have worked and those that have failed. The decision must be based on the reality of ATOM today and its verifiable history, not on how we wish things were in a perfect scenario. I keep insisting that we put concrete ideas and real numbers as of today on the table. I propose that we structure this sensibly: let’s set a specific…

Excerpt (1196 of 2333 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I have been closely analyzing not only Proposal #1029 here on the Hub but also Proposal #1007 currently being voted on in Osmosis, and the disparity in the narratives is alarming. It is very revealing to see how this merger is being sold depending on who the audience is. While here on the Cosmos Hub, Osmosis is presented as a ‘consolidated and revenue-generating’ infrastructure to justify spending 12 million ATOM, in their own Osmosis proposal, they admit that their token’s future is ‘increasingly uncertain’ due to ecosystem contraction and that they are seeking this merger as a ‘structured transition route.’ Are we looking at a strategic acquisition or a disguised financial bailout paid for by all ATOM holders? We cannot be hypocritical or allow ourselves to be misled by doctored data. We are being presented with scenarios where $100,000 in liquidity generates $1 million in daily volume—something that, in today’s market reality, is simply a fantasy. If we base the future of our treasury on magical projections, I could also say that ATOM will return to €45 tomorrow, but that is not responsible management. I demand that this debate be based on reality: let’s bring…

Excerpt (1193 of 1845 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

It was a quick transition: from “strategic move” to “maybe next time.”

We run validators on both Cosmos Hub and Osmosis at Atlas Staking and we went into Proposal 1029 leaning NO. The “exit liquidity,” precedent, and risk concerns resonated with us and we were skeptical.

After digging into the revised terms and thinking harder about what failure actually looks like, we changed our minds and were in favor. Then after 2 days of reading responses back and forth from those for and against the prop, we changed our vote to NO.

We are all for the acquisition of Osmosis. What flopped our flip back to NO are the terms of the proposal.

The DEX will be abandoned by the team, foundation, and grants administration and left to the Hub to hold the bag, and the Hub has no plans for it all.

The payment needs to be scheduled out in traunches, and contingent on performance benchmarks, but the Osmosis team doesn’t appear to have any interest in sticking around.

Many people also make compelling cases for the continued decline of Osmosis’ value and the sale price being too high.

If the team comes back with a new proposal that addressed these concerns, we would most likely vote YES.

The disparity of narratives is not surprising and how communications work. Osmosis likely needs this merge more than The Hub but The Hub is also getting a suite of benefits for merging. The reasons being different is sensible.

The liquidity volume ratio was definitely hyperbolic but the argument is more around the value capture of volume with an onchain economy. The efficiency of the liquidity is always something that will be optimized.

Osmosis has been one of the most important products in Cosmos, and many of us, myself included, have used it and benefited from it for years. My concern here is strategic, not emotional. Under Cosmos Labs’ leadership, the Hub seems to be moving toward a more institutional future. If that is the direction, I’m not convinced absorbing Osmosis is necessary for ATOM’s long-term success, even if it may look attractive in the short term while everyone is searching for a clearer path to value accrual. To me, these are two very different paths: • The Hub tries to become the economic center of Cosmos by owning the main DEX. • The Hub becomes the neutral layer that major Cosmos chains, institutions, and governments use to verify cross-chain activity, coordinate between chains, and move large amounts of value across the ecosystem. I think the second path may be more differentiated, more durable, and more aligned with where Cosmos is going. Victor recently shared a very interesting proof of concept here: https://forum.cosmos.network/t/interchain-events-cross-chain-state-verification-on-the-hub/16830 To me, it points toward a future where the Hub creates value by…

Excerpt (1193 of 2819 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Why are these separate futures in your opinion? I see them coexisting. I don’t think Labs is making deals with anyone that would find Osmosis a competitor. What we’ve seen in tweets so far have been about payment processing, bank governance & tokenized bank deposits. The one that seems most like a competitor, bank deposits, is a red herring. The banks are using the chains as infra, their users aren’t going to join the IBC system and start moving freely between banks. https://x.com/cosmos/status/2033936648095076369?s=20 The interbank network mentioned here would actually be supported by a hub-like risk transfer system through trading of tokenized deposits. These trades would have to happen on The Hub as its the central service provider, unless we expect each chain to enable trading. There is no future where 1) blockchain is valuable, 2) tokenization is valuable, 3) trading tokens isn’t. There will always be room to have a central venue to trade tokenized assets as just another service needed to be provided to these chains. The best thing about a merge like this is that these two seemingly opposing vision not only mesh together for a better long term product offere\ing…

Excerpt (1196 of 1587 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Ultimately Iqlusion votes yes on the merger. We feel that both sides have flaws in their argument. The main flaw in the against camp argument: I don’t really think there are good opportunities that will have community support for the non-native assets in community pool. This merger augments the 1 million in USDC already in the pull with 5 million in non native assets from osmosis. This provides a lot of defi optionality that current community pool lacks. The Osmosis team argues that the osmosis code base provides a value accrual mechanism aligned with the work Cosmos Labs is doing. I find this highly implausible. Old school AMM designs are foundational technology but are just not competitive in the modern defi landscape. If we successfully bring substantial assets into Cosmos, the main liquidity rails are not going to be Osmosis. Generally the Osmosis team made a lot of product decisions over the last two years that haven’t worked out and that’s largely how we got here. I don’t think the merger is going to change much. To me the value in the merger comes down to • Karmic debt owed to osmosis for doing the IBC go to market, saving the network during Dragonberry, and…

Excerpt (1198 of 1674 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

zaki_iqlusion: This merger augments the 1 million in USDC already in the pull with 5 million in non native assets from osmosis. This provides a lot of defi optionality that current community pool lacks. This argument is ridiculous. This is saying it is good for the Cosmos hub to exchange around $20M for around $5M. There are projects ongoing to professionally manage the treasury, we don’t need to exchange $20M in ATOM for $5M in other tokens for that. This is like someone who has $20M and someone says I give you CHF 5M which is better asset for your $20M. zaki_iqlusion: the main liquidity rails are not going to be Osmosis. Generally the Osmosis team made a lot of product decisions over the last two years that haven’t worked out and that’s largely how we got here. I don’t think the merger is going to change much. zaki_iqlusion: Ultimately Iqlusion votes yes on the merger. You are saying that basically Osmosis failed and won’t bring any value to the Cosmos hub and yet you contradict yourself saying you vote yes zaki_iqlusion: Karmic debt owed to osmosis for doing the IBC go to market, saving the network during Dragonberry,…

Excerpt (1197 of 1864 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Fair point! I actually agree these futures can coexist. My concern is not that the Hub can never support both institutional interoperability and a central trading venue. My concern is that coexistence does not automatically make this specific merger the right decision today, at this price, with this level of uncertainty. This is not a small add-on. It is a major capital allocation and governance decision for the Hub. I also agree that if tokenization grows, trading infrastructure will matter. Where I disagree is on the jump from “trading will matter” to “therefore the Hub should acquire Osmosis now, at these terms.” Right now, we still have limited clarity on what the Hub’s highest-value institutional role will actually be. What Cosmos Labs has publicly shown so far points strongly toward interoperability, compliance, security, and production-grade cross-chain infrastructure for institutions. I keep coming back to Victor’s POC and to the possibility unlocked if this Gaia change is discussed and accepted: https://github.com/cosmos/gaia/issues/4023 It points toward another potential valuable role for the Hub: helping chains verify events, coordinate with each…

Excerpt (1194 of 1872 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Why I Believe Proposal 1029 Is Not Right for the Hub I’m writing to share my perspective one more time on the Osmosis merger proposal and to explain why we believe it is not right for the Hub. We’ve published a detailed response on the forums , and I wrote a follow-up response to that post. I’m writing again because this is a critical matter. To be clear about something broader: We agree completely with the underlying logic. For ATOM to thrive, we need to bring new enterprise blockchains and financial institutions into Cosmos, but we also need the Hub to play a central role in servicing those users. Cosmos Labs and the community need to take more proactive steps to creating a strong Hub. We do believe this means introducing a DEX and incentivizing liquidity, continuing to expand IBC to public and private networks with routing through the Hub, potentially introducing an EVM, and partnering with more institutional-facing defi protocols. We’ve stated this in the past , and we are taking steps to obtain resources that will enable us to do that while continuing to advance our enterprise roadmap. Unfortunately, the fact remains that I don’t personally view the proposal as right…

Excerpt (1199 of 9386 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Do you have any plans whatsoever on a dex in the immediate aftermath on this props rejection? Because telling us to wait at a time where things change quickly has not worked for us either (ie Gravity Dex, Emeris). There has not been any guarantee, or assurances that the Institutional pivot is winning any users or bringing any profit for regular $ATOM holders. All we see is project after project leaving the cosmos. Sure, maybe you dont like the current prop, but there has been no clear Alternatives given or working either.

I belive that is the only one right proposal for the long period of time

This integration is the right path for the Cosmos Hub to take, and I’d like to address a few key concerns about finances, incentives, and product. Finances The claim is that ATOM is losing or destroying stable assets here to acquire a product that is only declining because those assets are not stable . We agree that Cosmos Hub should have an onchain exchange; the issue is how that is achieved. Osmosis as a financial liability Under even the pessimistic revenue projections outlined, Osmosis remains profitable. Any alternative exchange acquired will almost certainly cost more per year and has no history of deployment on a Cosmos chain. The question is then whether to acquire Osmosis vs tread another path, such as employing a new team to build a DEX from nothing - something that has been tried by other Cosmos-based teams multiple times before to little success, or launch EVM and rent a deployment. The plan to launch Stride DEX was put on hold months ago and would likely incur higher ongoing costs even if eventually implemented without any of the established user base. The Cost Framing this as an immediate loss of capital is misleading. This is a token-based merger…

Excerpt (1197 of 6292 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

It does look like this proposal isn’t going to get enough votes to pass.

I think the proposal is far more justifiable at a lower price.

the real question is how do we discover what price might work.

zaki_iqlusion:

I think the proposal is far more justifiable at a lower price.

the real question is how do we discover what price might work.

This is interesting, when the proposal was almost passing you come here to try to suggest people vote yes and that iqlusion will vote yes. Then when you see the proposal not passing you say that actually it was a very bad deal and that it should have a lower price?

Snow-Fall.io — Position on Proposal 1029 With less than 24 hours before the end of the vote, it is becoming clear that positions have largely been formed. Even if a few large validators have not yet voted — and could still shift the outcome — the direction of the debate is now well defined. In that context, it is worth taking the time to read through the discussions here. They reflect a level of depth and divergence that goes far beyond a simple yes/no vote. Over the past few weeks, we have been consistent on one point: ATOM needs to capture value. On that, we remain fully aligned with the direction behind this proposal. The idea of bringing a real liquidity engine closer to the Hub — and giving ATOM direct exposure to economic activity — is, in our view, a step in the right direction. Yes, the Hub must capture more value, offer real services, and operate a meaningful liquidity layer. But today, after following the discussions across both forums, one thing has become clearer: This is no longer a debate about direction. It is a debate about execution. And on that front, we share the growing concerns expressed by many contributors. We find ourselves…

Excerpt (1198 of 2566 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I just want to note that if this fails Sunny and the osmosis team are done. He’s out, there is no revision, look at Cito’s interview. He is only offering help if it passes, there is no second chances with this.

He’ll come here again for liquidity. He needs to unload his bag to start a new AI startup. He can’t unload on Binance for obvious reasons; he needs a fixed rate. I think his next offer will be simply 80-90% of the community pool, without any additional emissions.

Osmosis tried hard until the last minute to make the proposal pass, even convincing Kiln to change their vote from NO to abstain in the last minute. If the gap of Yes to No votes was not as big, this last minute trick would have definitely made the proposal pass. Osmosis before called themselves the center of the Cosmos and bigger and better than the Cosmos hub and now they come to try to get the whole treasury of $20M just like that and leave the Cosmos hub community holding the bag. Moreover, Osmosis failed to properly assess the risk of LUNA and UST and via very high incentives led many cosmonauts to lose huge amounts of money in their UST and LUNA pools. So congrats to the Cosmos hub community because the Osmosis proposal is now officially rejected

Typical corruption. His interview was full of references to validators, conversations with them, and so on. This whole corruption thing is just plain annoying. Why didn’t you, Vladimir Posthuman, create a poll in your DAO for such an important proposal, asking for a balanced vote instead of a YES? I’ll answer that. Because when it’s up to you PERSONALLY, you don’t care about delegators or all this show-off with a supposedly decentralized validator.

Everstake had the final say in this proposal. I can only imagine the negotiations that went on behind the scene…

I have a job for you at Wendy’s so you can live in your van down by the river, Sunny.

With the official rejection of the proposal, I would like to offer a final reflection. We know this is not over, but it is vital that moving forward, all proposed alternatives are evaluated with real and realistic numbers on the table.

Reducing this debate to a simple ‘YES’ or ‘NO’ ends up being, in my opinion, a somewhat despotic stance from both sides. I voted NO because I felt the figures were unrealistic and lacked solid information to build upon, but that doesn’t mean the dialogue should close. We now have the time to seek a solution that helps, rescues, and fosters both Osmosis and the Hub—and, most importantly, our community.

We gain nothing through insults or contempt for those who think differently; that only leads to even greater ignorance. Failing to put in the effort to understand the opposing view prevents us from seeing that every story has a ‘side B’ that deserves to be heard.

I ask for civility. There are real humans behind these projects who need our strategic support, not personal attacks. Now that we are at this point, let’s look for the most equitable solution for everyone. Thank you.

Following up on my previous reflection, I want to dive into a point that I believe is vital: Osmosis needs help, and it is our ethical and strategic duty to offer it. Osmosis is part of our DNA in Cosmos. It is like a limb of our own body. When a part of your body gets sick, your first instinct shouldn’t be to amputate it or let it wither away; your duty is to find a cure, heal that part, and work to restore the strength of the entire organism. We must offer them a real, sustainable path for assistance. If we cultivate this philosophy of mutual support and rebuilding, we might not be the number one network in market cap overnight, but we will undoubtedly be better, more resilient, and more united than any other ecosystem in this space. The tables can turn very quickly in this industry, and we must remain humble: tomorrow, it could be us in their position, facing difficulties and needing that exact same empathy. We are all members of something much bigger than our own individual investments, and that ‘something’ needs to be named and honored. Call it a true community, call it real interoperability, but let’s prove with our actions that we are exactly that. It’s time to put…

Excerpt (1199 of 1282 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This is how Cosmos Labs behaive! The brightest example - proposal about Hydro