“I highly appreciate the insights shared by the developers in this discussion. Given the exceptional caliber of the Cosmos technology and its robust network infrastructure, I urge the team to do their utmost to revitalize the asset’s economic model. It is imperative to optimize the tokenomics now to ensure that ATOM does not become a ‘zombie coin’—an instance of superior engineering suffering from a lack of market utility and value capture.”
2 Likes
@Researcher You are absolutely right, and this message needs to reach the developers and every single corner of our community. You have my full support.
It is deeply frustrating to see our network paralyzed, debating logo colors while critical, proven projects that could burn ATOM and drive real yield are gathering dust, waiting for a vote. We need to pass these proposals now and heat up the Hub.
Right now, ATOM is bleeding out in a prolonged sideways movement. If we continue on this flat trajectory, the ultimate trend will be downwards. I understand the market mechanics: right now, whales with 300,000+ ATOM are making a killing, extracting thousands of ATOM a day just by scalping the range. I respect them—they were smart, they got in early, they studied hard, and they know what they are doing.
But we also need to be human. Nobody is going to laugh at you for showing humanity.
It is okay to make a little less profit so that others can also enjoy the ride. It is perfectly fine if you don’t fly a private jet to the Maldives today, knowing you can just do it tomorrow with your next trade. Because giving the ecosystem room to breathe and grow means a small retail investor might be able to afford basic necessities for their family, or take them out to dinner thanks to their belief in ATOM.
If we don’t act and vote on these core developments immediately, Ethereum and Solana will eat us alive, along with all the other emerging projects launching their new tokens. They are already pushing complex developments while we stall. If we fail, our best developers will leave to fulfill their dreams elsewhere, and retail investors will walk away from ATOM with broken trust and empty pockets. Of course, the whales will walk away with their bellies full, because they are the ones playing with the market right now.
We can all play the game, and I know perfectly well that in finance, for some to win, others must lose. But there is a general rule we shouldn’t forget: winning just a tiny bit less can make a lot of other people happy. Let’s choose the least bad humanitarian option.
To be absolutely clear: my intention is not to play the charity card. I invest, I take risks, I want to make money, and I believe in this project. What I demand is simply that our Hub, our Cosmos, and our ATOM token start working at their full potential. If people fall and lose money in this market, let it be because of their own bad trading decisions (that is how you learn). But it shouldn’t be because we are artificially forcing the situation to squeeze them out. We can make money without cannibalizing our own system from the inside. Let losses be a natural consequence of the market, not a premeditated trap.
Having said that, it is time to stop the cosmetic nonsense, step up as a family, and start voting to push this network forward.
2 Likes
It’s May and at the last days of this month (personally I’ll be giving a little bit of start of june) we’ll be hearing from Cosmos labs and gauntlet about wtf should be done with atom.
1 Like
@Astratigos1999 You are absolutely right, and thank you for the reminder. We already knew about Gauntlet’s involvement; in fact, we have discussed it previously in this forum. We appreciate their work and Cosmos Labs’ deep involvement in this matter.
However, just because we are waiting for the “bus” (the Gauntlet report) doesn’t mean we should let the “train” pass us by. I understand that it might seem better to wait, analyze, and mobilize with all the heavy artillery once the report is out. But that will mean a massive amount of new information to process and assimilate all at once.
Meanwhile, we already have operational capacity within our ranks and very good ideas on the table. We need to respond and act now because these ideas are solid and will work regardless of Gauntlet’s final premises. We already know what our main failures are, and Gauntlet will certainly help us solve them, but our current community ideas can complement and help their approach. Gauntlet’s 9-week engagement is expected to deliver its report by the end of May or June.
To be fair, both waiting for the report and taking the initiative now are completely valid approaches. Personally, I strongly prefer taking the initiative as long as there are good ideas on the table, even though I know the report is just around the corner. That is my perspective, and it is why I emphasize that just sitting back to wait, only to start from zero later, is an unnecessary bottleneck for the Hub. Let’s keep moving forward.
Thank you for your words and reminders, @Astratigos1999.
Thank you for surfacing the proposal — I genuinely believe Revenue-Linked Inflation is the right framing for ATOM’s monetary policy. Treating inflation as a residual that fills the gap between a defined security budget and real revenues, rather than as an arbitrary parameter, is both more rigorous and more honest about what inflation is actually for.
One concern worth raising openly: a mechanism that channels real revenues to ATOM stakers does invite the question of whether ATOM could be characterized as a security under US law (Howey’s “profits from the efforts of others” prong). I’m not a lawyer and this is a question that deserves proper legal review rather than forum speculation.
That said, the structural argument is that ICS already does essentially this — Neutron and Stride stream a share of their revenues to ATOM stakers via the consumer chain mechanism, and that has been operational on the Hub for years without securities enforcement. A more general module would be a generalization of an existing pattern, not a new one. The defense rests on the module being permissionless, generic, and not centrally orchestrated — which is exactly how it should be designed regardless.
Worth flagging early so it can be addressed properly in the design phase rather than after the fact.
1 Like
@Visfor133 You bring up the elephant in the room: the regulatory framework and the Howey test. As an investor, regulatory risk is always on my radar, and it is a very valid concern to bring to the design phase.
However, as you brilliantly pointed out, we have already crossed that bridge with ICS (Neutron and Stride). The precedent is set, it has been running for years, and the sky hasn’t fallen.
Our focus should be exactly what you suggested: designing this revenue-linked inflation module to be entirely permissionless, generic, and completely decentralized from day one. That robust, decentralized architecture is our ultimate shield against being classified as a traditional security.
We absolutely must integrate legal awareness into our design phase, but we cannot let the fear of US regulators paralyze our global innovation. Right now, the biggest risk to ATOM is not the SEC; it is obsolescence and a lack of economic utility.
Let’s build this real-yield model intelligently and defensively, but above all, let’s keep building and executing.
Thank you, great contribution!
1 Like