ATOM Integration & Listing on Paxos’ Regulated Brokerage Infrastructure [Proposal- Community Treasury Spend]

Changelog • 2026-Sep-01: Posted initial draft • 2026-Sep-01: Author Updated, Added Reference Links** • 2026-Sept-09: Entered New go live date and additional forum transparency ** [Proposal] Community Treasury Spend: ATOM Integration & Listing on Paxos’ Regulated Brokerage Infrastructure** Co-Authors: Paxos Target Recipient: Paxos Trust Company, N.A. Requested Amount: 300,740 USDC Payment Terms: Settlement Upon vote-passage Target Launch Date: September 18 1. Executive Summary This proposal requests a one-time Community Treasury Spend of 300,740 USDC from the Cosmos Hub Treasury to complete the technical integration, liquidity onboarding, and institutional listing of ATOM on the Paxos Enterprise Brokerage and Custody Platform . ATOM has successfully cleared Paxos’s standard risk review ( Status: Greenlit ). The Cosmos team and Paxos have been engaged for the last couple of months to scope this partnership and are excited to bring this to the DAO for decision. Technical integration and liquidity provisioning are currently underway to meet a targeted platform launch date of September 18 . By funding this one-time integration fee, the Cosmos Hub…

Excerpt (1196 of 6412 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Super excited for this proposal and I think it has the potential to be one of the more impactful Cosmos Hub gov proposals in a long time. Here’s why: The proposal opens up dozens of new potential markets for ATOM ATOM is listed on nearly every crypto-native trading platform. Every major centralized exchange (and ofc all Cosmos-native DEXes), as well as nearly all perps platforms. That’s a good position to be in, but it also means the marginal value of the next crypto exchange listing is close to zero. Anyone who was going to find ATOM through those venues has already had years to do it. On traditional brokerage platforms, on the other hand, ATOM is basically unrepresented (with the exception of some of the more forward-thinking platforms like Robinhood). That’s where the overwhelming majority of retail and institutional interest lies today. Most people who own investments own them in a brokerage account, and ATOM has basically no penetration in those markets. This proposal allows a significant number of brokerages (including huge names like Schwab, Interactive Brokers, and Paypal) to easily deploy ATOM for trading to their customers with integrated liquidity support. This…

Excerpt (1198 of 2455 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Strongly supportive of this proposal.

Bringing ATOM into regulated traditional brokerage infrastructure like Paxos could open the door to millions of new retail and institutional users.

The potential for major brokerages to offer ATOM, combined with future institutional staking, makes this a very strategic investment for the Cosmos Hub. Great initiative!

Thank you for this detailed proposal, and I like the concept behind this. However, I have a few questions:

1. How was the $300,740 figure determined? Your terms and services and it don’t mention any listing fees, only share of trade fees between Paxos and partnerships. But it is written that ATOM trade fees are being waived. What was the rationale behind this alternate fee/payment structure for ATOM, and why this number?

2. Has any other chains gone through this process with Paxos?

3. What specific, measurable KPIs will be used to demonstrate the successfulness of this initiative — number of activated brokerage partners, trading volume, custody AUM, staking participation?

Thanks for the well thought out proposal! A few questions if you don’t mind, • Do you have any idea which brokerages on your platform have an interest in actually enabling trading / custody for ATOM? It would be helpful to know that the integrations costs are going to lead to a meaningful customer base. Any historical references you have from past integrations of similar tokens with staking rewards could be useful. • For the institutional staking offering, do you plan to launch your own validator or engage a white label validator for this offering? The Cosmos Hub has historically seen issues with large centralized providers (like Coinbase) eating up a lot of voting power and then not meaningfully contributing to governance. It would be awesome if Paxos could commit to working with existing validators who are able to become compliant with any regulatory requirements that are necessary. That said, if you have already engaged with certain validators to offer this product, it would be helpful to know who they are. • Are you open to setting milestones/KPIs that need to be achieve before the full 300,740 USDC is disbursed? Right now it seems like there is a lot of work to be done…

Excerpt (1197 of 1788 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Cosmos Labs / ICF should be funding this, not the community pool. This is squarely in line with their stated goals and ambitions. The word “institutional” appears in this proposal 12 times. So I’d like to understand why the community pool is being asked to cover it. Cosmos Labs / ICF holds a treasury of over $150M and burns roughly $2.5M per month. This spend is a rounding error for them. The community pool holds $866k, and this proposal would consume 35% of it. “The Cosmos team and Paxos have been engaged for the last couple of months to scope this partnership” Cosmos Labs negotiated and scoped the deal, but now wants to bill the community pool without consulting it or any community members in the months before (with a launch date in 2 weeks!). ATOM is already well distributed. What we’re missing are demand levers and real utility. Without those, no one has a reason to touch ATOM. My view is that the community pool should be reserved for products and applications that directly drive utility and demand for the ATOM, and only when no other funding source exists. This worked for Stargaze, Hypha, Hydro, and it could have for Osmosis. Have any of these brokerages actually…

Excerpt (1198 of 1447 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi @Wandering_Cosmonaut - Thanks for your questions!

1. The figure is in line our standard blockchain integration fees to integrate a chain across our wallet products, specifically our Trading and Custody endpoints. The T&Cs referenced are specifically for brokerages who will be listing the token, and not applicable to the actual token integrations.

2. Yes, linked in the References. AVAX and DOGE being the most recent.

3. All of the above (Sans Staking!) Staking is not in scope as this product offering will need to be scoped and rolled out after our standard risk review process that all new features go through. Scaling regulated infrastructure is an involved process but we are committed to adding this functionality down the road at no additional cost to the Cosmos Ecosystem.

Thank you for the input @Avi_Kleomedes - please see our responses below: • Please see linked references at the bottom of the OP. Generally, our clients are prioritizing listing tokens in the Top 100. More importantly this is an evergreen integration. In the last year, Paxos has added several new partners, most notably Charles Schwab, to our platform and ATOM will be available for both current and future brokerage clients as we onboard more financial institutions launching digital asset custody strategies. Our goal in the impending gigabull market is to win Wall Street, and Paxos’ success will drive additional distribution channels for ATOM as we add more brokerages. • Staking is out of scope for this proposal, but something we are actively exploring on the roadmap. • The proposal is scoped to cover Paxos’ implementation, engineering, and regulatory costs to integrate a new chain onto our custody platform. We cannot gate payment on KPIs as the upside for the ATOM team is larger than what we can offer today, as we continue to onboard new institutions and brokerage clients YoY. • To support ATOM trading, Paxos will route our brokerage partners order flow to the top…

Excerpt (1194 of 1370 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thanks for the feedback here, glad to see you’re excited about the proposal itself, just less so about the source of funding. Cosmos Labs / ICF should be funding this, not the community pool The short answer to this is that we can’t. We have legal and regulatory restrictions on what we can fund and what we can’t when it comes to token listings. If you recall, the ICF has never funded a listing of ATOM on any exchange, and there’s a good reason for that. If this proposal doesn’t pass, the integration unfortunately can’t move forward. ATOM is already well distributed While true on crypto-native exchanges, this is certainly not true of traditional brokerages and other tradfi markets that Paxos supports. We’ve got the opportunity to open an entirely new market of prospective ATOM holders at a time when the demand is just starting to take off and these integrations are still scarce. If we wait a couple of years to ship this. ATOM will be one of hundreds of assets for brokerage clients to choose from rather than one of a handful. My view is that the community pool should be reserved for products and applications that directly drive utility and demand for the ATOM and…

Excerpt (1199 of 1736 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Will support this proposal.

The CP contains enough USDC to cover it without selling ATOM, and the cost is actually reasonable for this kind of integration.

The benefits have been laid out extensively above and I agree with the arguments, even though nothing is guaranteed anyway. The bottom line is that ATOM needs to reach more retail and institutional players, and that’s a path towards this goal.

I see the potential value of getting ATOM integrated into Paxos’ regulated brokerage infrastructure, especially for institutional access. But I still have some concerns about the proposal. ATOM is already available through major institutional-facing players such as Coinbase, and Revolut is also part of the Cosmos ecosystem, right ? So what exactly does Paxos unlock that we don’t already have today? My biggest concern is the $300k USDC upfront payment. We are paying for the integration, but there are no clear guarantees on how many Paxos brokerage clients will actually offer ATOM, how much volume this could generate, or how much institutional demand already exists. If the Hub is going to spend $300k to gain institutional distribution, I think we should get more than just the technical integration. Why not include a commercial component in the deal? For example, once institutional clients gain access to ATOM, Paxos could also promote Cosmos Hub products such as Hydro. Even better, could Hydro potentially be made available or presented as an option for institutional users who gain ATOM exposure? If institutional ATOM staking and locking funds into Hydros vaults is part of the…

Excerpt (1199 of 2144 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

As a long-term ATOM holder and committed delegator, I want to voice my strong support for this proposal. For ATOM to break out of its current cycle and achieve sustainable economic growth, we must look beyond our existing boundaries. ATOM is already listed on virtually every major crypto-native exchange. Squeezing incremental growth from the crypto-native retail sector has diminishing returns; the real untapped liquidity and adoption lie in Traditional Finance (TradFi) and regulated brokerage platforms. Integrating ATOM into Paxos’ enterprise infrastructure is exactly the strategic leap forward Cosmos Hub needs. That said, community scrutiny is healthy and necessary. Below are my perspectives on why this initiative moves us forward and how we should address the core concerns raised: 1. Justifying the $300k Spend with Transparency and Accountability Asking the Community Treasury for $300,740 USDC upfront is a significant commitment. While waiving the $20,000/month recurring maintenance fee means this investment breaks even on paper in roughly 15 months, the community deserves maximum transparency. I urge the Paxos team to provide a clearer breakdown of this one-time cost…

Excerpt (1194 of 3730 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Guinch_Roze:

One thing I would also like @RoboMcGobo to clarify: what is the actual difference between the institutional access Paxos provides and the access already available through players such as Coinbase, Revolut or other existing institutional channels? Does this proposal open a genuinely new distribution channel, or could it overlap with infrastructure or access that already exists today?

Paxos is not an exchange, we enable globally regulated platforms to offer crypto to their end users. It’s a B2B2C model. Fun Fact: Revolut used Paxos to launch their crypto solution in 2020.

Paxos can offer exponential distribution to the ATOM tokenholders because a listing with us does not limit you to any one client set. All current and future brokerages are part of Paxos’ addressable market.

Hey Guinch! Thanks for jumping in. Guinch_Roze: For example, once institutional clients gain access to ATOM, Paxos could also promote Cosmos Hub products such as Hydro. Even better, could Hydro potentially be made available or presented as an option for institutional users who gain ATOM exposure? If institutional ATOM staking and locking funds into Hydros vaults is part of the future roadmap, this could create a much stronger value proposition for the Hub and bring institutional capital deeper into the Cosmos ecosystem. As cool as I think this would be, brokerages and institutional offerings operate under pretty strict regulatory requirements and are only just now dipping their toes in to simply cryptoasset holdings offerings (as Evan mentioned, even staking is something that needs to be rolled out slowly with their partners because it carries a whole different class of risk requirements). These folks are not ready for onchain primitives like Hydro and other DeFi protocols. We can’t bake this into any commercial arrangement with Paxos or their partners because it’d be essentially impossible to execute. I think with the current regulatory environment and market…

Excerpt (1199 of 2729 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

ATOM Renaissance is favoring this proposal. The $300k ask seems reasonable, but it would be better if we see a more detailed breakdown of how the funds will be used.

Everstake is generally supportive of the proposal. Regulated brokerage distribution is a segment where ATOM has been relatively underrepresented, and the one-integration-to-many-venues model appears materially more efficient than pursuing listings individually. The permanent waiver of recurring fees is also a strong signal of long-term alignment.

A few questions for clarification:

Post-launch reporting. What does Paxos plan to share with the Hub after launch, for example, activation status across brokerage partners, custody metrics, or aggregate flow indicators, so the community can evaluate the impact over time?

iryna_everstake:

What does Paxos plan to share with the Hub after launch, for example, activation status across brokerage partners, custody metrics, or aggregate flow indicators, so the community can evaluate the impact over time?

Love this question. Definitely interested to read the answer.

What does this mean for infrastructure providers, like us at Atlas?

Hi Evan,

So to put it succinctly, there is no guarantees about onboarding after integration. At least Schwab integrated SOL, LINK and AVAX, so there is some precedent.

Re: staking, while it is out of scope for this proposal, it is definitely on the table as a future step and one that I don’t think should be ignored as it has serious implications for concentration of voting power. I hope you and your team would be willing to engage on this discussion before moving forward with any sort of staking on any of the platforms that list ATOM?

“as the upside for the ATOM team is larger than what we can offer today” what exactly do you mean by this? Can you elaborate?

This could introduce ATOM to a much wider audience. For users who buy ATOM through these partner platforms, will withdrawals to a self-custody wallet be available from launch, or will that depend on each individual platform?

I’m thinking I’m generally supportive of this proposal, although I think it’s important to be realistic about what we are actually buying here. Getting ATOM in front of customers through institutions like Interactive Brokers, Charles Schwab, CMC, and other financial platforms is a good thing. Most traditional brokerages still offer a relatively small number of crypto assets, so simply having ATOM included among those assets can have value even if it doesn’t immediately translate into a huge increase in demand. It is also important to note that this is not a guarantee that all of these platforms will actually list ATOM. The individual brokerage clients ultimately decide whether they want to enable ATOM. What this proposal does is make ATOM available through the Paxos infrastructure so that those institutions have a much easier path to offering it. There is also something to be said for the legitimacy and familiarity that comes from being available through a major financial institution. I know people who manage significant amounts of money through traditional brokerages and have clients who want nothing to do with navigating crypto exchanges or figuring out which assets to…

Excerpt (1195 of 3683 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Will you start the proposal or what? Clock is ticking!

English Version (Cosmos Hub Forum) I strongly support the perspective shared by @Scott_TaxiStake . Being placed on the same institutional shelf alongside the giants (BTC, ETH, SOL) does not make ATOM a giant overnight, but it delivers a level of market seriousness and legitimacy that we cannot afford to pass up. For traditional investors, unfamiliar assets naturally trigger skepticism. That hesitation shifts when they realize Cosmos has over 7 years of battle-tested uptime , proven architectural resilience, and relentless building. In financial markets, track record equals trust: investors typically test the waters with smaller allocations and scale up once they confirm the infrastructure works flawlessly over time. Scott is spot on: we shouldn’t expect immediate parabolic inflows on day one. However, securing distribution across regulated brokerage rails (Charles Schwab, Interactive Brokers, etc.) right now is a vital strategic move. If we delay building these bridges, we will be playing catch-up. When our broader ecosystem catalysts align, the infrastructure must already be live to absorb that capital. Non-negotiable treasury requirement: A 100% upfront payment of…

Excerpt (1195 of 1537 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

After catching up on the discussions from the past seven days, I would like to share my perspective on the two points that matter most to me: the Paxos proposal and the possible reduction of the Cosmos Hub validator set. I largely agree with Scott’s distinction between distribution and demand, as well as with TRAVE’s concerns regarding accountability. I understand the strategic case for making ATOM available through Paxos, but personally, I am still not fully convinced. I may not have all the information available to Cosmos Labs or Paxos, and under favorable conditions this integration could become genuinely valuable for ATOM and potentially support its value over time. However, based on the public proposal alone, the Hub is paying for access to potential distribution—not for confirmed listings, users or demand. No individual brokerage is committed to activating ATOM, and Paxos has explained that payment cannot be conditional on KPIs. This does not mean the integration has no value. It means that evaluating whether 300,740 USDC is justified remains difficult with the information currently available. Are there concrete signals of interest from brokerage partners that can be…

Excerpt (1199 of 4388 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi @Anzus_GemWallet - Paxos supports Deposit/Withdrawal of digital Assets outside of the platform: Withdraw - Paxos Documentation

This functionality will be available to all Brokerage Customers at Launch.

Excited would be putting is strongly. Thank you for your reply, and as always, I hope for a positive outcome for the Hub. It seems as if others have similar concerns as I do. RoboMcGobo: We have legal and regulatory restrictions on what we can fund and what we can’t when it comes to token listings. By your words and Paxos, this is NOT a listing. It explicitly does not guarantee a listing on any of these brokerages. Mentioned multiple times by other community members as well. Maybe the foundation is under stricter guidelines, but Cosmos Labs as a US entity, is similar to House of Doge and PENGU which went through centralized entities and were mentioned in the proposal. How are they significantly different from Cosmos Labs? As this is fully driven by Cosmos Labs, I think it would be only fair for the Cosmos Labs team to make a contribution equal to or greater than the amount being requested. RoboMcGobo: the ICF has never funded a listing of ATOM on any exchange, and there’s a good reason for that. What is the reason for that? I’m also assuming those guidelines were made back in 2019. The landscape has changed significantly since then.…

Excerpt (1194 of 2947 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This is a question for @paxos-evan. Can share which brokerages have integrated tokens like ATOM, which sit 20 spots above or below it and the volume they generate? For example, it would be helpful to know which brokerages have integrated PENGU and what kind of volume it produces.

Also, who initiated the conversation? Was it Paxos or Cosmos Labs?

Thanks for clarifying. It’s good to know withdrawals will be available at launch, since some users may want to move their ATOM from a brokerage account into a self-custody wallet such as Gem Wallet.

IBC_Fren: Maybe the foundation is under stricter guidelines, but Cosmos Labs as a US entity, is similar to House of Doge and PENGU which went through centralized entities and were mentioned in the proposal. How are they significantly different from Cosmos Labs? IBC_Fren: What is the reason for that? I’m also assuming those guidelines were made back in 2019. The landscape has changed significantly since then. Additionally, this is not a request from the ICF, but from Cosmos Labs as a U.S. entity. It could even be made through Cosmos Labs Korea, a Korean entity. RoboMcGobo: Heyo! Happy to take on this one; I’ll let Robo/Paxos take on the questions regarding the opportunity. Generally, while policies have evolved, this area and the scope of law have not meaningfully changed at all (it is also less about internal policies and more about law, regulators, etc.). That is the case for any foundation, beyond Cosmos, that is a contributor to a decentralized network supported by many independent entities (like Ethereum!). The same logic/regulations apply for any entity a foundation owns . Both CL and CLK are not separate independent entities; they are…

Excerpt (1191 of 1735 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

After reviewing the comments in the forum over the (US) holiday weekend, we want to respond to the common themes below. We’re genuinely excited about this partnership; ATOM sits at the center of the most active interoperability layer in crypto, and we want to tell that story to our clients and expand the addressable market of instittuions and individuals who can be as bullish as we are. We’re pushing the voting period to September 10th EOD to allow more discussion first. The themes fall into three buckets: Distribution v. Demand, Breakdown of the Fee Structure, and Adoption Insights. The original forum comments are quoted above each response. 1) Distribution v. Demand “If Coinbase, Revolut or other existing players already provide similar institutional access, it would be useful to understand exactly what additional value Paxos brings.” As a tangible example, there are traders on Charles Schwab who will never touch a crypto exchange. Institutional distribution goes far beyond crypto natives: total crypto market cap is $4T, against the roughly $500T+ of assets sitting on traditional venues (Securities, Bonds, etc.) Paxos has received OCC approval ( not conditional) and…

Excerpt (1197 of 8244 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Gonna jump in here and try to answer by topic, starting with the one raised by @Scott_TaxiStake @Avi_Kleomedes @Wandering_Cosmonaut and a few others that essentially asks the following: Won’t this proposal cause more centralization in the validator set and drive stake away from my (smaller) validator? There are three points i’d like to share on this, each driving at this from a different angle: First, and i know this has already been said before but it bears repeating, this proposal does not contemplate staking as an objective. This should be viewed and voted on as a proposal for new trading integrations for ATOM. Whatever happens with staking, the trading integration alone is hugely valuable, and as a network we shouldn’t block valuable integrations now because they may lead to staking integrations that at some point in the future may possibly maybe centralize stake a little bit more (maybe). There are other ways to align stake with smaller validators in the event that were to occur (more on this below), so this generally does not feel like a strong reason to block an unrelated, net-positive trading integration that is good for ATOM discovery. Second, i’d argue that…

Excerpt (1199 of 3966 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hi @RoboMcGobo Thank you for the detailed explanation and my personal vote has always been a yes. The 20% threshold, while notable, is indeed out of scope of this proposal and should not influence this vote. To clarify, my intention was never to argue for a “no” vote, but rather a belief that “yes” votes to funding props should always be conditional on a round of questions. Also, as this became a topic going around in telegram groups, I did not want to see nodes that did not immediately vote “Yes” become demonized by the group so I played a bit of devil’s advocacy. My apologies if it seemed I was against the prop itself, and I am always open to suggestions on more constructive ways a validator can participate in governance. However, as the clarity threshold can: 1. Potentially affect the value proposition of tradfi integrations 2. Given that there are multiple ways to remedy it I believe is still worth a place in the discussion just so potential remedies can be worked out in advance, so that it doesn’t become a tangible issue when the project is live. If it’s already something that’s accounted for, then I would also urge community level validators to consider…

Excerpt (1194 of 1217 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you to @paxos_evan and the Paxos team for the thorough response and the substantial work behind this proposal. Paxos’ regulatory pedigree, technical execution, and reputation are beyond question, and expanding ATOM into institutional brokerage rails is an exceptional opportunity for the Cosmos Hub. I also fully align with the points raised by @RoboMcGobo : the risk cannot fall entirely on the Community Pool. While we appreciate that Paxos moved forward in good faith, this integration was initiated without a prior governance mandate. When managing shared treasury capital, fiduciary responsibility requires verification before disbursement. Before debating whether payment should be single or phased, the immediate priority must be visible, verifiable proof of functionality . We are not asking for commercial volume guarantees or market KPIs—we are simply asking to verify that the technical integration, custody readiness, and brokerage connectivity for ATOM actually work as intended. A practical path forward: • Verification first: A live technical demonstration, testnet/staging validation, or verifiable confirmation that the infrastructure is operational. • Flexible…

Excerpt (1198 of 1775 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you for these additional clarifications. I believe TRAVE has identified the right distinction. The community is not asking Paxos to guarantee commercial demand or force brokerage partners to list ATOM. Those decisions are understandably outside Paxos’ direct control. However, Proposal #1054 authorizes the immediate and unconditional payment of 300,740 USDC. Quarterly listing reports provide useful transparency, but they cannot replace verification of the technical deliverable being purchased. Paxos has stated that the risk review is complete, that significant engineering work has already been performed, and that the integration is expected to launch immediately after the vote. In that context, providing a live demonstration, staging validation, or another form of verifiable confirmation before the end of the voting period appears both feasible and proportionate. Supporting the strategic objective of this integration does not require the community to abandon basic treasury safeguards. Unfortunately, now that the proposal is already on-chain, it is too late to change the payment structure or add enforceable conditions. Technical evidence can still be provided before…

Excerpt (1196 of 1505 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

The Cosmonaut’s Corner is committing to a “Yes” vote on Prop 1054. We believe that any “Yes” vote for funding props is conditional on proper due diligence, and based on public discussions, we overturn our initial “No” vote (per voting policy).

Our Questions:

Q: Can Paxos provide examples of other projects that used this service?

A: AVAX provided as an example.

Q: Will there be monitoring afterwards to track success of the project? What KPIs will be used?

A: KPIs that are included, but not limited to: Number of activated brokerage partners, trading volume, custody AUM.

Q: Will Coinbase’s >20% voting power affect the value proposition of this integration going forward?

A: There are multiple remedies for this under consideration. However, this is out of scope for this proposition.

We agree with the answers and believe immediate concerns are sufficiently addressed. Given that Paxos has done previous integrations in the Injective ecosystem, as well, we are confident in the technical capabilities.

To close the loop → just saw that the proposal went on-chain!

Mintscan

Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks.

As a side note, good debate and back-and-forth !

klendhaar:

In that context, providing a live demonstration, staging validation, or another form of verifiable confirmation before the end of the voting period appears both feasible and proportionate.

Thanks for the support @klendhaar

Paxos listed assets will be available at the link below and we will ensure this is updated and shared with the community in line with the target date: Assets and Blockchains - Paxos Documentation

We do what we say!

The fact Paxos chose to waive recurring fees tell us that they see ATOM as a highly desirable integration! Which would suggest that they know the potential revenue and want a successful onboarding as much as anyone! Strong supporter of this proposal, exciting times

Thank you for the link, @paxos_evan . Looking through your documentation, it is reassuring to see that Paxos already supports non-EVM chains such as Aptos, Sui, and Solana. It proves your engineering depth. However, this documentation reflects what is already live for other networks— Cosmos Hub and ATOM are still completely absent. I genuinely want this proposal to pass, and I see immense strategic value in connecting ATOM to Wall Street brokerage rails. But trust cannot be a one-way street. Asking the Community Pool for 300,740 USDC with an “all-or-nothing” stance, while expecting the community to release the funds before seeing any tangible integration, is not how a balanced partnership works. As a long-term delegator, I have a duty to protect my capital and the shared treasury. With the on-chain vote ending on September 17 and your stated launch date set for September 18 , the timeline is very clear: • If the integration is indeed finished and launching the day after voting concludes, your team should easily be able to share testnet transactions, staging environment logs, or a live documentation update between September 14 and September 16 . • If that…

Excerpt (1189 of 1639 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

IMO, it’s not reasonable to require Paxos to do the full integration with a simple “trust me bro” promise by Hub governance to pay later after the integration has been implemented. They may be taking pre-emptive steps to do so anyway, but we should not require it as a condition of payment.

If payment is issued and Paxos doesn’t perform, there’s an easily identifiable, regulated counterparty with a reputation to uphold that governance could look to for repayment. On the other hand, if Paxos performs and Hub governance decides not to pay, to whom would Paxos be able to look for recourse? Nobody, unfortunately.

The balance of power in that situation trends heavily against Paxos. It’s a defect of Cosmos governance that payouts can’t be enforced against governance without involving some community multisig that bears liability in certain circumstances. Resolving that defect may be a topic for another thead, but in the meantime we shouldn’t let that prevent us from getting a good deal passed through governance, one that Paxos is very obviously going to execute on (since it’s in their interest to do so).

Thank you for your perspective, @RoboMcGobo . I appreciate your engagement, though I respectfully disagree with how this counterparty dynamic is being characterized. Suggesting that Paxos is vulnerable while the Hub is well-protected reverses the actual balance of power: • Recourse in reality: If $300,740 USDC leaves the Community Pool and the integration underperforms or stalls, a decentralized, unincorporated DAO has effectively zero practical capacity to pursue a costly legal recovery against a multi-billion-dollar US trust company. The funds are simply gone. • Paxos holds the ultimate off-switch: On the other hand, Paxos controls the infrastructure, the API keys, and the broker access points. In any milestone arrangement, if the Hub were ever to act in bad faith, Paxos could instantly deprecate or switch off the integration at zero cost to them. Framing Paxos as an unprotected victim and the Community Pool as an unreliable counterparty does not reflect how bilateral enterprise agreements work—and, frankly, casting doubt on the Hub’s willingness to honor its commitments is a disservice and a lack of respect to the community and the delegators whose capital sustains…

Excerpt (1196 of 1884 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Trust does not replace verification.

Our voting power may be limited, and we sincerely hope that this investment delivers everything promised rather than becoming a blank cheque for an outcome that remains unverified.

We also recognize that we may not have access to every piece of information, particularly confidential commercial discussions. However, governance can only assess this expenditure based on the publicly available information and commitments presented at the time of the vote.

This is not a vote against Paxos or against the integration of ATOM into regulated brokerage infrastructure. If this decision were based solely on our hopes for ATOM and our confidence in the strategic objective, our answer would be YES.

But governance cannot be based on hope alone. Our heart supports the ambition; our responsibility to the Community Pool requires a NO.

Small price to pay for what’s on the table, it goes far beyond just ATOM on a brokerage list, this opens the whole ecosystem up through an institutional rail. Well done to everyone involved