Core Problems of ATOM

Core Problems of ATOM

1. No real demand

It is not used for gas, collateral, or settlement.

Users have no compelling reason to hold ATOM.

​

2. No value capture

No matter how big the ecosystem or how many chains there are,

revenues, fees, and profits are largely unrelated to ATOM.

​

3. Survives entirely on inflation

Its current price, staking, and node security

are all propped up by 10% annual maximum inflation.

The whole system would collapse without inflation.

​

4. The team only does superficial work

Tweaking IBC, SDK, interchain security, governance —

all are just minor infrastructure fixes.

They do not solve value capture or real demand.

@sdgggs , you’ve accurately diagnosed the “Legacy” problem of the Hub. The system is currently propped up by inflation because it lacks high-density utility to justify its security costs. I am advocating an approach that doesn’t require the Hub to change its code or governance structure. It simply requires an architectural shift in how we utilize its security. By using a Landlord/Tenant logic (Multi-Tenant Collateral Anchoring), we can solve the four points you listed: • Real Demand: Demand for ATOM (and the Hub’s security) should be driven by the high-velocity notarization of external value . When an industrial-scale application uses the Hub to anchor its state, it creates a constant, massive requirement for Hub block space that is based on real-world productivity, not just speculation. • Value Capture: Revenue is captured directly through transaction fees . When a sovereign chain anchors its value to the Hub, every mint, sale, and purchase of that anchor asset (in my case FOMOG ) generates fee revenue for Hub validators. The anchor asset is used to bond the specialized servers or validators on the sovereign chain, creating a direct economic link back to the Hub’s…

Excerpt (1193 of 2173 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗