What can the community do to improve the liquidity of ATOM on exchanges?
Another ATOM pair being delisted by Binance while ICF and Cosmos Labs do nothing. Since the ICF legally cannot hire any market makers (not sure if actually true because most projects do hire MMs perfectly fine), should the community do something using the community pool before ATOM gets completely delisted and goes to 0?
There is nothing we can do without the foundation doing something themselves.
Not true. The foundation doesn’t control anything and it’s clear they don’t care about ATOM going to 0.
Once ATOM goes to 0, what do you predict happens to them? Do you think the SEC will take them down once the next administration takes over?
That’s something the community can also look into. They are governed by Swiss law which doesn’t really protect the token holders, but the community can try.
With enough pressure from outside players, Swiss law won’t matter in this circumstance. I personally believe the ICF & Cosmos Labs don’t have enough liquidity to survive a legal battle.
Nothing to do with Bitcoin dropping through support hahah
You get how the market works yeah?
ATOM is THE worst performing token in the top 100, hovering around COVID ATL. Why are coins like INJ and NEAR doing much better?
The ATOM/BTC pairing delisted was along side 11 other btc pairings including AAVE, ICP and CAKE, for periodic trading and liquidity volume review.
Do you believe these 3 assets are also going to zero?
Cosmos is the premier modular stack and the market can’t operate without it, I believe that’s why you are seeing institutional validation through Wells Fargo, Zeeve and SWIFT! That’s why it’s slow because it has to be compliant and why it is being dragged through the mud at ATL, just my opinion feel free to counter this
Compliant? Why not compare with ETH, SOL, ZEC, or even closer examples like NEAR and INJ, all of which move much faster than ATOM on all aspects? Are they all non-compliant?
If ETH cant pull off their mono to modular architecture transition then I don’t think it will be compliant with their target market fit assuming they are positioning for the same job as Cosmos.
Solana is a different beast, it deploys quantity not quality which would create regulatory risk but it’s not trying to be a neutral router either from my knowledge.
I’m just an investor and a believer in cosmos and the ecosystem, I believe building into the massive validation from institutions would have to come first for the hub because as we all know time and capital are limited. Undeniable fact that retail has to come at some stage but does it have to be via apps on the hub, I think it would invite the same regulatory risk that ETH is now negotiating,does the megablox or slice block idea have any substance? I’m not a tech engineer so i can’t make any statements on that side, but I would think that way the hub is clean and streamlined for the soon to be heavily regulated target job and the community can still build the things they need to run important ecosystem apps that attract both retail and institutions.
Can we propose funding for a side chain from ICF or the community pool?
Yes but the problem is Cosmos Labs won’t do anything to build it and it will try to block any proposal to fund one.
Woah, I would like to correct myself here. According to the ICF treasury snapshot in September of this current year. The ICF has around $162 million dollars in the treasury. Which is definitely enough to survive a legal battle. Now, if this is real the ICF might be hiding something up their sleeve but it doesn’t take away from their lack of focus on ATOM. I will be digging deeply on this while gaining a broader understanding on how the ICF & cosmos labs operates moving forward. However, a year ago the ICF had over $281 Million dollars which is concerning. From what I see, their ATOM holdings have increased up to 2.74% yoy. I wonder what the ICF is planning to do with its treasury & how often do they get audited?
In my mind you have to have something to sell. The idea of moving data from one PC to another is great for users who understand how that works and why it matters, but it isn’t a selling point. You have to have revenue in some way.
I think the market maker debate is treating the symptom. A market maker can tighten spreads, but it can’t create demand, and when there’s no reason to buy, it’s just paying to slow the bleed. If the Hub had real fees flowing to ATOM holders, liquidity would have a reason to show up on its own.
Until then, I’d worry about paying for market making out of the community pool, because once the money is spent we’re back in the same spot. If we’re going to use the pool, I’d rather have it own ATOM liquidity in DEX pools. The Hub keeps the trading fees and still owns the position at the end. It won’t fix the CEX listings, and it carries impermanent loss risk, but at least the money isn’t gone.
The most valuable coins are all about “store of value”. The idea that revenue can drive demand is enticing but not necessary. The most successful stocks don’t share revenue with stock holders at all, yet people buy them just because “number goes up” and the stocks themselves become store of value so early buyers can dump on late buyers. Sorry this sounds like ponzi but that’s just how the financial world works.
In this setting, deep liquidity and strong price are themselves major drivers for demand. We expect the payout to the market makers be gated by liquidity and price metrics reported using an oracle governed by ATOM stakers so that the ATOM aren’t wasted.