Cosmos Hub Ecosystem Growth & Developer Acquisition 2023

ALPHAGROWTH PROPOSAL FOR Cosmos Hub ATOM GROWTH DAO – Growth & Developer Acquisition 2023 Best read on Pinata Change log • 2023-01-25 Created initial post • 2023-01-25 Changed name and Updated Mandate Outline • [Preface] • [Overview] • [Vision and Mandate] • [DeFi Operations] • [Developer Acquisition] • [Getting Started] • [About Us] • [What We Provide] • [Track Record] • [Project Deliverables] • [Reviewer Committee] • [Team] • [Budget Request] • [Bonus Structure] Preface On December 19th, 2022, Cosmos Hub Prop 88 was accepted, and a tax was created to fund the community pool, ongoing. “This large pool of funds is used to fund the growth of the ecosystem through grants, development funding and also community building.” This signals that the community is not 100 percent content with the current avenues for maintenance and development, grants, and funding. Interchain Foundation (ICF) and All in Bits Inc. (AiB) are excellent organizations, but the need for extra support now requires advancing the Cosmos Hub. On Jan 12th, 2023, a discussion was started in the Cosmos Hub governance forum around starting a grants…

Excerpt (1195 of 22067 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

YES YES YES ! good job thx u

We need to see some previous results from you, not only words on paper. I’ve seen your website and basically, you guys have a database with all the investors and projects that need funding.

Cosmos community it’s not stupid to allocate and throw so much money at you without any previous results.

I need to see some successful campaigns from you guys, what have you done for other projects? I need to see exactly the numbers. I cannot trust your words.

We should exhaust means of collaboration before resorting to competition. What actions have you taken to collaborate with the Orbital team prior to posting this competing proposal?

Honestly, i am not so sure about your proposition.

Your total 6 months fees : 74000atom is higher than them (9months) and their profile seems to be much higher and more well known. and you will ask for a bonus fee.

Only difference is see the amount on grant deployment which is different.

I will vote abstain for this.

Need some more added value.

Thank you for this question.
We Approached Orbital to collaborate and they stated they would be pushing the proposal on chain.
And up to collab once our proposal goes through.

Tanned,
Thank you for the feedback.

Your total 6 months fees : 74000 atom is higher

Yes it is higher. 15-30% will be ad and marketing spend on Developer Marketing. Which is what it takes to attract developers to grants programs and RFPs.

their profile seems to be much higher

We are a bootstrapped B2B firm and well known among ecosystem professionals.
We are experts at what we do.

and you will ask for a bonus fee.

Bonus fee is success based and affirmation from the community to continue working with the community as reapply.

Only difference is see the amount on grant deployment which is different.

We have a vision for where grant money will go, we know how to attract developers to build and provide proposals. please listen to the answers at the 46:30 mark:
(Atom Grant Program DAO AMA with Cephii – TerraSpaces)

I think you should ask for the funds in milestones so we can see what you deliver. You are asking too much. Let’s start with the first milestone and then we can see some results. I’m all in for bringing more developers to Cosmos.

This second initiative could actually be a very good fit to complement the ATOM Orbital DAO. Their focus is likely going to be on infrastructure funding primarely. From your set of skills you seem to be very well positioned to target protocol layer & apps devs.

So my initial line of thoughts would be that you should be partners.
On the financial side though I can easily understand ATOMs funding ICS infrastructure, I can also imagine giving some grants to protocols but I don’t think this should be compared one to the other as they are totally different beasts.

Anyway my feeling on this matter is that you guyz should see around a table and talk partnership instead of competing. Maybe this is unintended but your proposal seemed quite critic of the Orbit DAO. Having another controversy battle in cosmos would be stupid imho, moreover if you fight for different goals which in fact would turn out to be complementary right ?!

Hello, And thanks for this proposal, alphagrowth: • We have experience running multiple grants programs • We are established and have been in business since 2018 • We have 800+ developer teams and dApps looking for their next project • We have an existing developer acquisition playbook • We have built a grants CRM and dashboard to help quickly score and evaluate applicants • We have an existing database of over 24,000 crypto projects • We have 2500+ relationships in crypto and have deployed projects via grants to 70 EVM and Cosmos-based projects • We will use funds to sponsor relevant hackathons • We will use funds to promote awareness of ecosystem projects • We will acquire projects and developers through our 10-person business development team • We will work with Cosmos Hub and the community to help define, communicate, and drive the vision narrative Usually, when i see big numbers, i like to find “proofs” somewhere. 800 developers, 24K crypto projects, 2500 relationships, 70 EVM and Cosmos projects, And when i went to your website, i basically couldn’t find any info about that beautiful numbers. Maybe i didn’t search well, but all i can…

Excerpt (1196 of 1756 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

we should write a policy in black and white and visible to all in order to make the points related to funding clear. We should perhaps start by asking for the composition of the team that is requesting funding. The work already done in the past (to establish an amount in line with the past performance of the team. If the team is new … I don’t see why it would ask for an astronomical sum but it should not necessarily be a rejection for fund them). To encourage the team to work well, we should therefore agree on a starting percentage for the first release of funds (example 10% of the request). Then unlock as and when not time … but the work done. Imagine that the team wants to be funded for 5 tasks, we could imagine that upon delivery of each task the partial release of funds is executed. So once the last task is delivered the payment would then be complete.

I read the proposal as posted on IPFS . If your team’s experience with other notable ecosystems like NEAR and protocols like Aurora are any indication, there are various things that I believe your team does well, but there are other things that I’m concerned about. Summary • I will only comment on the vision and mandate for now because until these issues are addressed this proposal should not be considered in any serious capacity. • There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the Hub’s role in the Interchain which should invalidate any request for funding or authorities to solicit builders on behalf of the Hub. Preamble First, I should mention that I advocate for plurality. I think it’s important that different and diverse funding platforms exist on the Cosmos Hub. However, given that the previous proposal is not on-chain yet and you’ve framed it as a competing proposal, I will leave comments with that mind. I generally agree with @maximus and @Govmos regarding finding opportunities to collaborate. maximus: We should exhaust means of collaboration before resorting to competition. What actions have you taken to collaborate with the Orbital…

Excerpt (1195 of 5555 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I echo a lot of this sentiment. A lot of what is said leads me to believe that the proposer doesn’t truly understand Cosmos or the hub. How can you hope to grow the hub if you don’t understand it?

Hello @alphagrowth

I am wishing you well with your proposal as I believe in the virtue of healthy competition. Like I replied to you by email a few days ago, we are confident with our team. We’ve worked very hard to assemble it and get the right components together.

Like @abratusz, we’re pro-plurality of options for grants within the ecosystem and pro-plurality of DAOs in general, as long as they can work effectively and provide value for the Hub and the ATOM holders.

A collaboration at this stage is premature since this demand is formulated at the last moment. We can keep an open dialogue if there is a need to collaborate after the voting so that we do best by the community.

because the vision of the hub is not explicit … just 1% of the ATOM investors know but not more … it must be more explicit. investors are lost too … maybe need a work on this way

We appreciate your feedback. We are developer marketing and ecosystem growth experts. Writing out the game theoretical intricacies of how the ATOM token incentivized validators to secure the Hub and eventually IBC relayers it not the purpose this proposal. The purpose is to layout a plan for a business development strategy on how to make more revenue and create more value for the ATOM token. ATOM’s value is appchain adjacent and does not really have any other utility. We updated the proposal to make the narrative explicit. Which narrative? "The narrative we propose is a campaign to turn the ATOM token into a commodity. ATOM should have all the same DeFi categories as ETH has, with multiple alternative appchains and dApps to choose from. " Why do you mention “ other successful DeFi projects”? The Hub is not a DeFi project. The Hub and the Interchain have continued to grow despite not having an explicitly-stated utility. The token utility of ATOM will go up if the are more Defi use cases for ATOM. This does not have to live on the Hub, but needs to exist and be explicit on where and how a user can use ATOM. • Can you expand on the link you made between…

Excerpt (1197 of 2270 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

alphagrowth:

Great question,the first stage would be creating a business case for ATOM 2.0 in terms of research on how much MEV revenue can be created. Also researching and building a business case around how many chains would want to participate in the ATOM 2.0 vision. It was never signaled how many appchains wanted to participate.

even atom rejected 2.0 why are we pushing in that direction?

another direction to go ? witch one ? no move in the futur ? ATOM is just ATOM … no more

AlphaGrowth I understand you are here only to make money for your agency, but you cannot trick the community with these marketing tactics. All you have is a database with emails from new projects and investors. All these emails can be easily scrapped in 1-2 days from lists with investors looking to invest and projects looking for funding. We appreciate your interest in the cosmos ecosystem.

Thanks for the feedback.
Yes we are 1 part developer marketing agency, 1 part Business Development team, 1 part software and data and proud of it.

These are the components that good teams and projects are looking to work with.

Yes we do have a business and we will add more value than we take.
We do know how to market and position Ecosystems to make it more attractive for developers to work on.

The value judgement that we are trying to “trick” the community is not a very fair representation.

This post has already started 6 or 7 very critical conversations and provided a ton of feedback on the good and bad of what we presented.

In this the decentralized way isn’t this all part of the process?

We have Dialogue and Discourse to iterate to the right solution so everyone wins and is aligned.