From Chaos to Stability to Growth: the Plan to Build the Cosmos Hub Roadmap in Public

ChaosBanner 1998×768 164 KB I’m going to start this post by stating the obvious. Cosmos Labs hasn’t communicated enough. For months, the lack of communication around a clear Hub roadmap left a vacuum; a vacuum that, on many occasions, the community has attempted to fill on its own. The most recent example of this is the Osmosis acquisition proposal , which came far too close to passing despite the current state of the protocol and the high cost. It admittedly felt like a bit of a wake-up call when voters told us directly that they voted to nuke the community pool for this because “something felt better than nothing.” That’s fair, and while I personally view this as a destructive way of thinking, the reason people are thinking this way in the first place is because of us. It’s on us to change that, and that’s what this post is about. To give some context on how we’ve been operating over the last several months, Cosmos Labs has been running two parallel missions: • Advancing an enterprise roadmap, and; • Developing the Hub and ecosystem For a while we treated these as overlapping goals, with Hub success effectively contingent on enterprise alignment. While we…

Excerpt (1198 of 14479 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

“Lifting up builders in the community and giving them a platform to succeed” @RoboMcGobo Could you share more plans / ideas on this? This is, in my opinion, the #1 area that needs to be fixed in Cosmos. Communication alone won’t solve much. If community is a direction that Cosmos Labs wants to pursue in addition to enterprise, we need builders building new products in Cosmos. Where are builders supposed to build? And how? And why do they choose Cosmos over other frameworks? And who are their customers - retail or enterprise? There is zero direction on this at the moment. Doesn’t need financial support, but for builders who have ideas, where do they go? • App chains haven’t found PMF. Any builder today launching an app chain is fighting headwinds, and they are largely seen as a failed experiment for anyone new to Cosmos. For app chains without a token, builders have to license PoA. This prices out 90% of builders who just want to build cool weekend projects. • Enterprise chains are walled garden - both customer and chain development wise. • Hub has CosmWASM, but that is largely deprecated, clunky, and not compatible with modern stacks. • There is no path for SDK module…

Excerpt (1198 of 1346 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Great question. From my perspective at least as the Hub lead, I’d like to push additional development to the Cosmos Hub and chains that have strong synergy with it over IBC (to answer your question on where to build). In the short term, there are a few things we can do here: • Builder-specific events focused on Hub application development. The hackathon we are sponsoring by Mad Scientists will be one of these events, but ideally we do something like this on a regular cadence • Public, sandbox-style devnets. We want to start testing some possible futures for the Cosmos Hub or potential sidechain mentioned above. We think the best way to do this is to launch sandbox forks of the Hub with various features added (EVM, privacy, POA, etc) and seeing what people choose to build on that architecture. This also helps us figure out some of the outstanding questions mentioned above • Giving builders a platform with the Hub account and our other audiences to showcase their projects and help them attract users Longer term, we’ll have EVM pathways for developers. It’s one of the key items we’re going to be discussing in some of our community and validator calls. There are a lot of…

Excerpt (1196 of 1823 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Appreciated! @RoboMcGobo Couple follow-up questions / ideas (thinking out loud, sorry for the length): • One of my biggest concerns with going EVM-first is that Cosmos loses its moat. Cosmos-exclusive features (IBC, x/bank, modules, even CosmWASM) are what differentiate us from other ecosystems. Yes, agreed EVM is needed for feature parity, but I just want to voice that I think if Cosmos Labs wants to prioritize community building. I think it in our best interest to at least try and direct to Cosmos-exclusive building (modules, core SDK improvements, IBC, etc) however that may look. • Really like the subnet / devnet ideas. Are there pathways to standalone builders like myself or existing app chains to launch these devnets with eventual plans to merge into the Hub if they do well? We’ve seen plenty of great app chains over the years in Cosmos just fail due to unsustainability. I feel like this could become a great pipeline for The Hub / Cosmos and even a fully built out incentivized program (at zero cost to Cosmos labs). Launch an app chain via the program (zero cost, full enterprise module licensed suite for free, PoA, no token, but split revenue 50/50 with ATOM). If it…

Excerpt (1199 of 4019 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

@RoboMcGobo / @trevormil I intended to be the first to reply to this, but seeing the high-level discussion that has already unfolded between you two just proves how hungry this community is for real direction and leadership. Regarding your main post, @RoboMcGobo : This is exactly the kind of honesty, accountability, and clarity the Hub has been begging for. Admitting we are in a “Chaos” phase due to a vacuum in communication is the first step to fixing it. As a large-scale investor, seeing a shift from vague promises to a structured three-phase plan (Chaos → Stability → Growth) with hard deadlines is highly reassuring. I am incredibly eager to see the Gauntlet tokenomics update and the USDC news next week. Those are the tangible catalysts that will get this network moving again. Secondly, touching on the builder discussion: @trevormil hit the nail on the head. From an investment and tokenomics standpoint, his idea of a 50/50 revenue split with ATOM for successful devnets/subnets graduating to the main Hub is brilliant. That is exactly the kind of built-in value accrual and economic sink we need to stop ATOM from bleeding in this sideways market. Another crucial point here is…

Excerpt (1199 of 4046 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

@TRAVE Thanks for this. Agreed on almost all points. I just wanted to clear up. I think pursuing some sort of EVM entrypoint is necessary. However, The Hub needs to be realistic, and I do not want to see it fall into the trap that we have seen over and over again in Cosmos. This is the bare minimum. XYZ (such as EVM) on Cosmos sounds cool to us, but we need to make XYZ appeal to builders and Cosmos as their deployment destination. “on Cosmos” is not convincing enough. There are 1000s of EVM chains out there. Most builders don’t have the same sentiment around Cosmos as we do. I foresee (could be wrong) that The Hub will have a hard time trying to appeal to EVM developers: • EVM is ultra-competitive now and the minimum bar is a ton of funding. Builders will choose chains that literally pay upwards of $150k in grants just for them to choose their chain. That is what we are competing with. • With trying to onboard EVM users to the main Hub (or even a EVM Hub sidechain), you lose all the value-add about Cosmos for builders. Cosmos was built for launching your own chain (SDK, IBC, modules). If I am just deploying a Solidity contract to The Hub via EVM and not launching my chain,…

Excerpt (1199 of 3335 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

IBC everywhere, yes please. I never hold bridged derivatives. Learned that lesson the hard way.

Allowing the issuers to compete for on/offramp orderflow to be filled through their own stablecoin sounds super interesting.

Love hearing the coming improved communication with the community and validators. I look forward to the validator calls for sure. Love hearing that CL is growing the team. We are always happy to help and volunteer our time.

Regarding tokenomics, money goes where it’s treated best and if junk bonds pay 13% yield and they can be bought at a discount, that’s our competition. I’m much happier holding a distressed asset that pays 15% staking APR than I am holding one that pays sub 5%. I think across crypto the thought that slashing inflation will stop price bleeding is misguided. Inflation serves a purpose short term.

This post was great to see. I’m excited.

Appreciate you writing this. The honesty about the communication vacuum is more valuable than it might seem. That vacuum has cost this ecosystem real contributors who interpreted the silence as abandonment and left. Worth naming that directly. A few thoughts from someone who’s been here since 2019… On rekindling validator communities: the framing matters a lot here. “Rekindle” implies people drifted away. Some did. But a meaningful number of independent operators are still here, running real infrastructure, and simply aren’t visible because they never built a marketing operation. The question isn’t just how to bring people back, it’s whether the criteria for recognising contribution will evolve beyond uptime and governance participation (both play major importance btw) toward the things that actually differentiate independent operators: sovereign hardware, public infrastructure, geographic distribution (most long term committed builders in my experience come from independent teams, not VC contributions). On the stability phase: “finding solutions to keep explorers sustainable” is directly relevant to something we’ve been building. ValidatorInfo runs on our own archive nodes…

Excerpt (1198 of 1465 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Guinch’s Wishlist for the Cosmos Hub Miscellaneous

Guinch’s Wishlist for the Cosmos Hub Transforming the Cosmos Hub into the Economic Center of Cosmos TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction TLDR Existing Products Native Liquid Staking Infrastructure + LST Factory A Native DEX A Perp DEX A Lending / Borrowing Market A Native Hub Stablecoin Privacy & Financial Confidentiality Tokenomics Performance Improvements and Gaia Decentralization Strategic Alignment, Branding & Communication Strengthening Teams Dedicated to th…

Some points to care about in this topic.

Really appreciate the decision to build the roadmap more publicly and iteratively.

As interchain ecosystems continue to expand in scale and complexity, operational clarity and long-term infrastructure coordination will probably become just as important as feature velocity itself.

It also feels increasingly important to think several years ahead regarding:

• cross-chain verification models,

• synchronization costs,

• relayer and validator operational complexity,

• and the growing number of autonomous services and machine interactions that modular ecosystems may eventually need to support.

Looking forward to seeing how the Hub evolves around these long-term infrastructure challenges.

How does one join the TG group? I’m @atomicdawg on Telegram. Thanks!

Subject: The “Yield + Scarcity” Flywheel: A Unified Business Model for the Hub @AtlasStaking hit the nail on the head regarding yield. Capital seeks returns, and lowering inflation from 15% to 4% (following the Gauntlet-related discussions) risks turning ATOM into “just another coin” without a competitive edge. We need to keep investors incentivized to stay and lock their capital. However, the solution isn’t cutting rewards; it’s aggressive, utility-driven burning. Think about the economics: if we maintain a 15% yield to attract and retain investors like myself, but our utility engines burn the equivalent of 30% of the supply (as an aggressive target), we create massive, real scarcity. A rising price floor combined with a highly attractive 15% yield is the ultimate magnet for massive new capital and long-term staking. We shouldn’t fear inflation if we build a “Black Hole” for supply. In fact, we can take this a step further: If the burn rate is exceptionally high during certain periods, we could temporarily increase the yield percentage even more. This would act as a strategic marketing event to capture a massive new wave of investors. Even if some of them are just…

Excerpt (1193 of 2804 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Subject: Adding a Massive Revenue Pillar: Enterprise Compliance & RWAs Following up on the revenue models and the “Value Capture Machine” we are discussing here, I want to inject a critical point that @serejandmyself just highlighted over in the Tokenfactory/CosmWasm technical thread. If we are building a true ‘Revenue Roadmap’, our biggest untapped market isn’t just retail crypto users; it is TradFi and RWAs (Real World Assets) . Through the latest technical upgrades, the Hub now possesses the exact primitives required by corporate compliance and OFAC regulations (such as force-transfers, account freezes, and controlled admin burns). These aren’t just minor technical features—they are the absolute legal prerequisites for any bank or institution to issue assets on a blockchain. As we build out our “Highways” and “USDC Liquidity Station”, we need to explicitly market the Hub as the sovereign, regulatory-compliant settlement layer for institutional capital. We have the technology to host regulated real-world money. If we attract institutional volume, the fee generation (and subsequent ATOM burning) will dwarf anything we’ve seen from retail. This “Enterprise Readiness”…

Excerpt (1196 of 1257 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

More communication is definitely a good thing for everyone. In my opinion the only thing that is required is to reduce the dynamic inflation of ATOM to an acceptable level. I personally think it is fine now but a more reasonable 2 - 7 percent would be more acceptable as a currency and with the on chain revenue also going to stakers the yeild would still be decent. Other than that we keep the original purpose of ATOM as is as the governance coin of the Cosmos Hub. The Hub continues as it does with facilitating the ecosystem. I hold OSMO and ATOM and I voted against the merger because I do not think it is needed. What we need it new incentive programs from the Hub community fund and time. I suggest we have some kind of incentive kickback to chains that integrate ATOM into their platforms that allow direct access windows to ATOM staking and or allow fees to be paid in ATOM. Let the new chains come with the next bull run and include voluntarily participation with ATOM and help drive revenue. We could liquid stake 10% or so more of the community pool with the various LST providers to create a steady stream of ATOM for incentive programs.

@Gumby1 "I appreciate the open communication and I completely agree that building a more sustainable and ‘sufficiently dignified’ ecosystem is a net positive for everyone. I fully share that vision of mutual trust. However, in financial markets, capital providers need balance. Proposing a drastic inflation reduction to 2-7% requires a structural counterweight to reduce the associated risk. If we truly believe that this new economic alignment framework is solid, beneficial, and will create a healthier Hub, then investors will happily commit to staking because of the network’s intrinsic value, not because they are forced to. Therefore, let’s establish a fair and sincere quid pro quo based on that very trust. If governance wants to seriously implement this inflation reduction and revenue-sharing model, it should be strictly paired with the complete removal of the 21-day unbonding period (reducing it to less than 11 hours to match industry liquid standards). If we are confident that this reduction is the right path to strengthen the network, there is no need to maintain artificial barriers or lock up capital by force for three weeks. Let capital be free. By removing the…

Excerpt (1190 of 1482 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

It is safe to say that anyone still holding ATOM is a genuine Cosmos ecosystem enthusiast. Therefore they should be informed about the current market sentiment about ATOM tokenomics and ATOM’s lack of value capture from the ecosystem. It is clear that inflation is considered to high. It creates a need to stake as to not lose value due to inflation. Therefore no one wants to hold and trade liquid ATOM. During the 10-10 low liquidity event the price action on Osmosis was fine no low liquidity spikes. The spike on Binance was do to thin order books and market manipulation. A lower inflation rate reduces the need to stake and allows for more traders and fuller order books. Reducing liquidity problems. The real issue isn’t lack of liquidity. It is negative sentiment towards the current high inflation. We do not need extensive tokenomic research to tell us this. What we need is a proposal to pass with a date for the change to take place in the near future to allow everyone to come to terms with the change. I also don’t see how 11 hours is an industry standard to for an unlocking period. What PoS chains have 11 hour unstaking windows? The 14 - 21 day lockup period is standard and is the…

Excerpt (1198 of 1664 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

"I respect the passion for the ecosystem, but global markets are not driven by enthusiasm; they are driven by risk-adjusted returns and capital efficiency. Assuming that institutional investors or large capital providers will simply ‘buy, hold, and wait like everyone else’ out of ideology is a fundamental misunderstanding of how liquidity and risk management work. Let’s address the core misconceptions here: • The 21-Day Standard is Outdated: You ask what PoS chains have fast unstaking windows. Look at the largest networks in the world: Ethereum, Solana, and even TON (which offers up to a 20% APR). Post-Shapella, Ethereum’s exit queue is frequently processed in a matter of hours or a few days, depending on network load. Solana takes roughly 2-3 days (one epoch). A guaranteed 21-day lockup is a relic of 2019 architecture. Capital flows to where it is treated best, not where it is held hostage the longest. • The Risk Premium: The 21-day unbonding period is an immense financial risk. It means being completely paralyzed while the market could crash 50%. The current high APR (inflation) is precisely the ‘risk premium’ investors are paid to accept that 21-day blind spot. •…

Excerpt (1195 of 2289 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I would like to know more about what retail can do to help? I use the ecosystem strictly, auto compounding, trading on osmosis and dydx, voting on governance, Keplr walIet etc. but I definitely want to contribute more to the causes.

I am a firm believer in Cosmos Hub as a whole and its potential to change the game, it is exciting to see discussions like these as I only ever get/see negativity a majority of the time. This is probably way off topic

Apologies and Thanks in advance