Hub Weekly Update #19: October 8, 2026
hub-weekly-19-landscape 1500×600 305 KB This is the nineteenth Hub Weekly Thursday recap, straight from the Hub Unit team, per the cadence we committed to in the From Chaos to Stability to Growth post. Every Thursday, we will call out significant Cosmos Hub updates on the forum, with a short companion thread on X, recapping announcements, live events like validator or community calls, and ecosystem updates! For more info, see the linked posts, and contact @RoboMcGobo on Telegram to submit news for the weekly. This week: the Neutron recovery proposal is on-chain and needs votes before Monday; 555,400 ATOM from the AADAO liquidity position is back in the Community Pool with a write-up on what the process taught us, a status check on the USDC migration to Injective by chain, and what we are stress-testing in the tokenomics work before the wrap-up goes out. • Neutron recovery : Proposal 1058 is in its voting period until Monday, October 12. Participation is short of quorum; please vote! • AADAO LP return : the 555,400 ATOM allocated to AADAO in 2023, plus accrued staking yield, has been returned to the Community Pool, and the forum write-up covers why it took the…
Excerpt (1197 of 13782 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hi @RoboMcGobo
Thanks for the write-up!
It is good to see that USDC.inj is slowly picking up and I certainly look forward to any upcoming discussions regarding tokenomics.
It sounds like the current step is trying to hypothetically break the model gauntlet has proposed. Certainly the hub cannot have a Juno Whale situation where staking rewards are purely some function of wallet count + amount staked.
While I understand the reasoning behind bundling everything behind one vote. Hypothetically though, let’s just suppose gauntlet proposed 4 items to change. So I presume there will then be 4 separate discussions and 4 props.
But through discussions let’s say 3 pass and 1 fails. Will there be a situation where the rest of the model breaks because of this? If it is split like that, I think in the proposal things should be clearly marked with something like:
A. Safe if executed alone / self contained
B. Safe only if executed with X
C. Unsafe if executed alone
I honestly didn’t want to stir the pot any further, and I was genuinely looking forward to seeing confirmation in this Thursday’s update that the integration finally had a concrete rollout date. Instead, opening Hub Weekly Update #19 , I was met with complete silence: not a single mention of Paxos, no trace of the promised update from Evan, and zero transparency regarding the 300,740 USDC of community funds already disbursed. In your previous reply in Update #18 , you stated: "I think you may be misremembering the conversation. Nobody painted Paxos as victims. I was simply stating an objective reality that onchain governance (including but definitely not limited to Cosmos Hub governance) is a very difficult counterparty for businesses to rely on because of enforcement limitations. Sorry if you somehow took personal offense to that but it certainly wasn’t my intention to offend. I also don’t believe an integration was promised by the 18th (that’s the date the proposal was set to pass). I wouldn’t expect it to be done that quickly even though Paxos had already begun taking steps to integrate the Hub when the prop went on chain. Still, I’ve already asked Evan for an update…
Excerpt (1197 of 4531 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hi, I’m studying Cosmos Hub for a course project and trying to understand the tokenomics research mentioned here. Which metrics would help a beginner check whether the proposed changes create demand for ATOM beyond staking rewards? A simple example would really help.