Hub Weekly Update #21: October 22, 2026

hub-weekly-21-landscape 1500×600 304 KB This is the twenty-first of Hub Weekly Thursday recaps, 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: Stargaze shipped private, encrypted wallet-to-wallet messaging on the Hub and is running a raffle for early users through October 31, the proposal to migrate the Community Pool’s 566,067 USDC.n to USDC.inj is on the forum with an on-chain target of October 27, the Gaia v29 upgrade proposal is live for voting until October 27 with the upgrade scheduled for block 33,618,500, the InfStones institutional staking API delegation is structured in three tranches and waits on final signature, and ATOM is live on Paxos Crypto Brokerage. • Stargaze Messages : encrypted messages between wallets, unlocked with your wallet and an optional password, are…

Excerpt (1195 of 12079 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

From DeFi to CeFi language

Question on InfStones + Paxos

I voted yes on Proposal 1054 (Paxos - 300,740 USDC) because ATOM was going live on Paxos.

Now in Weekky Update #21 you say ATOM is live on Paxos but you want 597,794 ATOM upfront on signature for InfStones for a “Closed Institutional Customer” with 2 further tranches.

My angle is simple:I thought we were DeFi. Why are we using Centralized Terminology now? Tranches, Closed Customer, final signature. Sounds like a Wall Street deal.

Where is the Quarterly Paxos report promised in Proposal 1054?How many institutions actually enabled ATOM? Why should we pay 597k ATOM for an API for a secret customer before you show us what the 1st 300k USDC bought?

CAN I HAVE SOME ANSWERS PLEASE

Hello! I think there seem to be some (err… a lot of) misunderstandings here. Grey.0516: Why should we pay 597k ATOM for an API for a secret customer before you show us what the 1st 300k USDC bought? The ATOM community isn’t paying for anything. This is an ATOM delegation coming from the interchain foundation. The funds are owned by the ICF so it’s not something the community needs to spend or give permission for. We’re notifying the community of the delegation so people can see what we’re working on, not because we need permission. Grey.0516: Where is the Quarterly Paxos report promised in Proposal 1054? I imagine it’s a bit of a challenge for Paxos to give a quarterly report on an integration that went live less than 1 quarter ago. It’s only been a month. That being said, as mentioned in other threads, Paxos has brought ATOM live as a supported trading and custody asset and it’s now live in their supported assets list, which you can find here ! We’re working with them on chasing down integrations now, but I can tell you with a good amount of confidence that this won’t happen quickly. Working with tradfi entities takes time, and they all have…

Excerpt (1198 of 1298 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

300k USDC for updating a webpage and an inderminate timeline is unacceptable. The community needs more transparency.

Appreciate the update but you’re missing the actual issue.

The issue isn’t whether ATOM is on a webpage. The issue is that we’re recreating the exact system DeFi meant to replace.

You yourself say “Traditional Finance”… That is the problem!!!

DeFi was supposed to be open, transparent, permissionless. Now we have

• A secret Institutional client that can’t be named.
• 597k ATOM delegation for their private API.
• Justified as "ICF Funds, not community funds - as if ICF ATOM isn’t community value.
• Compounded with a previous $300k deliverable is" it’s on a web page, each client decides later "

This is old tactics with new technology. Few enrichment with different words. Delegation instead of spend, Notification instead of Governance. Secret client instead of public good.

Before the playing field changes again, can you simply tell us:Who is the secret client and why must they stay secret in a transparent ecosystem?

Everything else is just excuses for going back to the old crap with new ways to make some rich.

Grey.0516: Before the playing field changes again, can you simply tell us:Who is the secret client and why must they stay secret in a transparent ecosystem? So again I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Sorry if the way that I drafted this post was unclear! There’s no client that has been confirmed as an integrator at this time. We have a list of potential partners that Infstones has identified as good candidates for using the API, but it’ll be up to Infstones to close those deals. The delegation tranches ensure that Infstones is properly incentivized to bring those partners in. As far as whether those partners will be disclosed when they’re signed, that’ll be up to what those partners are comfortable with us sharing. We prefer to share information publicly and transparently whenever possible, and that’s what we’ll push for when new API integrations come live, but part of the reason for using delegations to do this rather than asking for community funding is that we can’t guarantee that these folks will want us to share their info. Which brings me to my next point. The issue is that we’re recreating the exact system DeFi meant to replace. You…

Excerpt (1191 of 2386 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Shouldn’t the ICF delegation be given only AFTER confirmed integrations?

Stargaze Messages sounds like a nice consumer feature for the Hub. From a wallet support perspective, two quick questions: if someone sets the optional password and later forgets it, can they still get back into their messages using just their wallet? And will messages still be readable if a user restores the same wallet on a new device?

Cosmos Labs, please address this on a X spaces if possible. If not, will you elaborate more on next community call or monthly validator call?

ATOM-Renaissance:

Shouldn’t the ICF delegation be given only AFTER confirmed integrations?

Agreed. Delegation should ideally follow confirmed integrations and measurable progress. This ensures accountability, transparency, and confidence that the support is delivering real value to the ecosystem.