ATOM Accelerator’s Journey: Updates and Next Steps

Change log 1: AADAO is abandoning the idea of a signaling proposal to extend the mandate to December 2nd and will end its mandate as expected on November 12th, 2023
Change log 2: We’ll pause applications on Sept 5th and not Sept 1st like previously announced

Hello $ATOM Community,

The ATOM Accelerator, also known as the AADAO, has embarked on a transformative six-month journey. As our initial term is set to conclude on November 12th, 2023, we’re excited to share our progress.

1. Our Achievements

Over the past months, we’ve made significant strides:

  • A major highlight has been our involvement in the Tokenomics RFP. This project, much anticipated by the community, promises to be transformative and revamp the ATOM tokenomics and the Cosmos Hub governance;
  • We’ve meticulously reviewed 167 applications, out of which 22 projects have been greenlit. This translates to a total disbursement to date of 110,601 ATOM or $925K. See Chart 1 - Applications for monthly details;
  • Our collaboration initiatives have been fruitful, with notable partnerships such as the AEZ Accelerator in tandem with Neutron DAO and Long Hash Accelerator;
  • The stATOM-ATOM LP of 450,000 ATOM on behalf of the Cosmos Hub, resulting in the first ever deployment of Protocol Owned Liquidity from the Cosmos Hub;
  • Co-funding partnership with Osmosis Grant Program (OGP) which gave birth to the funding of Mesh Security, an initiative that could constitute a pivotal moment in the shared security landscape within the Interchain;
  • We’ve provided funding for the Metamask Snaps initiative by Mystic Labs, potentially bringing a massive Cosmos exposure to Ethereum users;
  • Financially, we’ve earmarked $774K (92,600 ATOM) for distribution upon the completion of project milestones. With our current funds standing at $3.77M (451,173 ATOM at $8.36/ATOM). The average amount of AADAO grants is $92K.

We’re optimistic about ending this 10-months mandate with a balance of 200k ATOM, which would represent 41% of the original allocation of 588,000 ATOM.

Chart 1 - Applications as of August 12, 2023

Chart 2 - Assets distribution
The total assets held by AADAO as of Aug 16, 2023: US$ 3,726,301. See allocation below.

See Appendix 1 for the Main Wallet and Appendix 2 for the Secondary Wallet details.

2. Addressing our Challenges and Ensuring Quality

To uphold the quality of our review process and ensure each application receives the attention it deserves, we’ve decided to temporarily halt new grant applications on September 1st, 2023. This pause ensures that we can adequately wrap-up the mandate in the event of not being re-elected.

We’ve successfully processed 129 applications and we have a current backlog of 38 applications which we believe will climb to 60 applications by the end of August. We process an average of 25 applications per month. Our goal is to close out this application processing phase of current and new applications with the same rigor we’ve maintained throughout our term. We’ll reopen applications if our mandate is renewed by the Cosmos Hub community.

3. Strengthening our Team for the Next Phase

In addition to our regular grant making, the two program manager’s have been actively driving high value-add initiatives such as the Tokenomics RFP, the Stride LP custody on behalf of the Cosmos Hub and the Metamask Snaps by Mystic Labs grant. Such grants and collaborations put significant but worthwhile pressure on AADAO bandwidth and resources.

Recognizing the need to bolster our operational efficiency for the next phase, we’re considering the addition of a Grant Lead as the appetite for grant application, strategic partnerships (such as AEZ Accelerator and Osmosis Grant Program) and targeted RFPs continues to grow.

4. Extending our Mandate

Given the momentum we’ve built and the tasks ahead, we propose an extension of our term from November 12th, 2023 to December 2nd, 2023. This three week extension will allow us to:

  • Process the application backlog
  • Actively monitor current projects’ milestones and audit quality of deliverables before payout
  • Ensure there’s no operational gap in AADAO’s presence
  • Refine the DAO structure and operations for the upcoming term.

Next Steps:

  • A signaling proposal with the suggested next steps will be posted 7 days from today.
  • On December 2nd, 2023, our end of mandate report as well as a forum post outlining our vision for the mandate renewal will be posted.
  • By December 9th, 2023, the comprehensive spending proposal will go on chain.

Your feedback has been the cornerstone of our initiatives, and we eagerly await your thoughts on our roadmap. As an ATOM owned organization, we are committed to honoring all of your on chain decisions.


The AADAO Team

Appendix 1 - Main Wallet details as of August 12, 2023

Appendix 2 - Secondary Wallet details as of Aug 12, 2023

A total of 52,999 ATOM ($443K) was transferred from the main wallet to the operational budget multisig to cover expenditures. Out of the total operational expenses incurred up to this point ($274K), 86% were allocated to payroll, and 9% were dedicated to marketing and advertising.


Governance votes

The following items summarize the voting options and what it means for this proposal:

YES - You wish to extend our mandate from November 12th, 2023 to December 2nd, 2023.
NO - You do not wish to extend our mandate until December 2nd, 2023.
NO WITH VETO - You deem this to be spam. If the number of ‘NoWithVeto’ votes is greater than a third of total votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.
ABSTAIN - You wish to contribute to quorum but you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal.


unless you are stride or neutron or lum or the vibes guys, how can AAdao justify their overhead just to distribute funds to teams and projects previously rejected by governance? other than support 2.0 initatives that were rejected in 82, what has AAdao done that couldnt have easily been done through regular spend props?

1 Like

I think that extending the mandate or terminating the program make sense.

I would like to be specific, I take issue with only two of the funding initiatives:

  • Cosmos Millions

    • in the end, it’s a wash. Not terrible, mainly due to strong execution. I’d try to avoid similar funding in the future but one very clear reality here is that it did make an effective sink of atoms.
  • Missions Publique

    • my opposition here is simple. I’m concerned about having our cabinets penetrated.

Like that.

As a validator, it is my job to prevent the penetration of cabinets at all times. Only Cosmos hub stakers should matter to the hub and not any world economic forum.

I am strongly suspicious of the world economic forum.

Out of deep respect for @Better_Future and @hxrts – I’m withholding action on preventing the involvement of Missions Publiques and their vibez. I am also organizing a Twitter space with MP.

According to @Antoine_Vergne it is properly spelt “vibez”


To be clear, you support extending the mandate by three weeks. Followed by non renewal of the program mid December? @jacobgadikian

I am personally supporting this extension proposal.

I agree with others that the AADAO isn’t the best, I would love to see it less opaque and possibly have all applications be public via DAO-DAO (on Neutron?). Then, the reviewer committee votes publicly on funding proposals made to the DAO. This would have led external interested community members to express their concerns before the payment of the problematic grants.
HOWEVER, as an ATOM holder, I am pleased to not have 100 funding props per week. Where, as an ATOM holder, I have less context than the AADAO to vote properly.
I will mention again those thoughts in December at the renewal proposal.


167 applications and no one interested in enhancing Atom valset decentralisation,


  • LS centralisation risks
  • CCs addition centralisation risk
  • CEXs’ whitelabels number increase

it’s quite disappointing, nop ? regardless what you’ve done otherwise.

my tiny bags will vote YES on the next extending proposals if and only if there is a focus on that precise field.



Some or all of the above points are valid and will be addressed as part of the tokenomics RFP by Blockworks, Binary and RMIT. Looping in here @effortcapital


If I may give some thoughts here. I think AA Dao has done quite a good job better than most foundations. But, if I am to be critical I can’t lie that there is a clear conflict of interest funding projects from the French Region. Specifically two mentioned:

  1. Cosmos millions
  2. Missions Publique

Jacob has already stressed his concern but I believe when you are spending money from the CP, their needs to be better selection on what gets built & how it can be consumer facing, & from my point of view grants to people you know. I think if it’s going to extended we ask that new officials are elected like Synthetix does with their councils so we don’t have this problem continued. Good start but time to pass the torch imo

Side note: All for Effort Cap being elected.


@BendyOne comment from CosmonautHq on 8/17, #aadao topic channel:

"From experience governance proposals are very time intensive.

Personally I am only part time and would struggle/be unable to do my work (reviewing and comms) and governance simultaneously.

This question though is why we are going back to governance to request the time. Governance can of course reject it but we thought it important to show the fullest picture."

It seems your team bandwidth likely to get hijacked from preparing and defending the governance proposal as per @BendyOne comment above.

Unwise to effectively lose 3 weeks to gain 3 week extension.

Or to lose 2 weeks to gain 3.

Blockquote It seems your team bandwidth likely to get hijacked from preparing and defending the governance proposal as per @BendyOne comment above. Unwise to effectively lose 3 weeks to gain 3 week extension. Or to lose 2 weeks to gain 3.

I tend to agree with this comment. This seems like a lot of work just to extend 3 weeks. I’m not sure what the community gets out of it. There are still 3 months until the end of the project. Can the team not complete the tasks in 3 months especially if they put a pause on processing applicants?

Also I would expect operational costs to increase based on operational expenses listed in original proposal (it won’t let me include links).

Based on this document we could expect costs of ~$44K of overages charges to the community (Monthly salaries for listed positions * 75% of month). Is this really necessary? Couldn’t we spend our time more wisely than wasting it on this proposal to extend for 3 weeks? Every one on the team is paid quite generously that I would expect deadlines could be met. For example, we are paying $3K per month for part time to work 8 hours per week. With 3 months left, I think it should be easy enough to complete tasks even if it meant them having to work 2-3 more hours per week to earn their agreed upon monthly salary.


ahahah sorry but lmfao

how many grants are given from & to US citizen/orgs? no problem/cOnFLicT oF inTEreST there i guess…

that’s ridiculous.

1 Like

They’ve built more promising tech the Lum :joy:, I think we are both biased here. My opinion though

Stride Labs (SL) strongly supports this proposal.

During Stride’s transition to Interchain Security, being able to correspond with a group of informed Cosmos Hub representatives was invaluable. Whenever Stride was looking for guidance around AEZ strategy, contributors consulted the AA DAO and they provided valuable input.

The Atom Accelerator DAO has also been a crucial operational partner to Stride, custodying the 450,000 ATOM provided as liquidity on Astroport Neutron in a safe and timely manner. As future consumer chains onboard, more POL will be deployed into the ecosystem. Until a trustless solution is deployed, an operationally-savvy multisig composed of Cosmos governance-elected representatives will be necessary to steward these funds.

The AADAO also reviewed a grant proposal submitted by SL. The review process was thorough, the AADAO team tracked SL’s progress in a detailed manner and has consistently provided transparency to the community through regular Twitter posts, Twitter spaces and blog posts.

SL strongly supports the team’s term extension and renewal, especially if the AADAO can continue to provide the same quality of services to the interchain and transparency on their process.


This extension shouldn’t be a problem, reconducting next year shouldn’t be either. Of course there are opposing voices and there always will be… that’s just the sign of a healthy political system in Cosmos. I love our dramas. Its just less fun to bare in a bear market :rofl:

Anyway, jokes aside… whether you like the DAO member or not, deep down you all know we need a DAO. So far I think the Atom Accelerator has done a fairly good job regarding the very high bar set by the community expectations. Of course I’ll vote positively on this extension and I look forward to have the DAO next year as well. We are far from being over with the public infrastructure of Cosmos and to roll this out correctly, well… we need a DAO !


@Youssef provided the community grants reporting extension, the final delivery date for mandate report is December 2nd, 2023; in addition to the end of mandate report, AADAO will also share a forum post outlining the vision for the mandate renewal, at or around the same time, correct?

Then, on December 9th, 2023, the comprehensive spending proposal will go on chain to renew or terminate the DAO’s activities.

Might you be amenable to deferring the spending proposal on chain to Dec 14th, instead?

If the community grants your team an extension to produce the mandate report – it seems to me AADAO should reciprocate the courtesy by allowing reasonable, minimum time for the report to be read, processed and discussed prior to triggering a vote on chain.

To me that would be fair.
Delivering the report on Dec.2, followed by on chain proposal on the 9th feels aggressive.

I see your observation form French teams. That isn’t a conflict of interest, I think Cosmos devs/builders/community has a large Canadian french population. The Conflicts of interest have been transparent and addressed. Ever since the cosmos millions dilemma on validators there have been clear rules established. Speaking of Cosmos millions, they have shown to improve, address community concerns and grown under bearish conditions.

AADAO isnt perfect but we want nothing but to drive maximum value to Cosmos hub and AEZ. I urge everyone not to focus on just 1 grant you may disagree with but also the 10-20 others in progress. The sentiment hasn’t been healthy and it sets everyone back. This isn’t directed towards you but in general.

Lastly I appreciate the support and ideas from everyone even the criticism. We are always looking to improve.

Hey Noodels great feedback. We would love to conduct operations via an onchain platform like daodao. It would reduce a lot of overhead and give more clarity context on it. We are exploring this option as we speak and has been one of our key focuses.
One thing that is difficult to portray however is the many hours spent on meeting with teams, negotiating grant sizes and deliverables and addressing any potential problems that may arise. AADAO isnt just a grant focused dao but stewards of business development, outreach in organizing events, partnerships, as well as becoming a trusted medium for participation such as strides liquid staking deployment on astroport. The grant winners effectively become partners in a sense where review committee members and oversight such as myself participate in countless calls and check ups ensuring a smooth progression or potentially minimizing risk if the teams fail to deliver. Point I’m trying to make is that there is a lot of work behind the scenes the community isn’t aware of and I just wanted to share my experience on the process.

1 Like

Just to chime in here on the topic of “what is the AADAO doing that the community pool can’t do?”:

As a grant recipient I’ve seen up close how much work the team is putting in, from the Tokenomics RFP design & handling, to the interviews, to the weekly calls where they monitor progress and track whether what we’re doing is still mostly aligned with the current political sentiment. In the end someone needs to check if the grant recipients are doing a good job and if the Hub’s interests are being represented.

Spending money comes with accountability monitoring, and that takes time.

For this being the first time the AADAO is run, I’m extremely impressed by the transparency. I believe there’s a future where the DAO is run similar to how Neutron’s treasury is run, with the community able to Veto proposals, but the tech isn’t on the Hub yet, so I’m eager to see them continue to work in the current configuration until this is possible.


Thank you @Noam for sharing your experience of working with AADAO first hand.
I’d add to what you said that AADAO is also engaged in various ‘non grant’ activities that are taking a significant chunk of our time but that are definitely worthwhile: business development with prospective consumer chains that want to test the water with us, advisory to consumer chains such as Stride and Neutron, operational support such as the Neutron airdrop clawback that we’ll be handling and transferring back to the Hub, POL on behalf of the Hub deployed on Astroport (450k ATOM).

Because AADAO is the only elected organization that is 100% ATOM owned and aligned, it naturally attracts Hub’s key collaborators. To be honest, I’d go as far as to say the ‘non grant’ part is as important as the grant one.

Re, the mission publique proposal.

First I’ll note the team hasn’t had a chance to do their Spaces yet, and out of respect we should give them the chance to do so before we form conclusions.

From an AADAO perspective, the idea behind the mission publiques project was to focus community energy and intelligence on the ICS contracting design & optimization problem, and, hopefully, thru this work — and also the RMIT desk study effort running in parallel — to achieve, say, 5-10% better value for the hub community thru better ICS contract design, say, on $1b of ICS chain bondings over next 3 years. That’s $50-$100m of value for $atom that might be realized: back of the envelope, $50m (value for $atom) / $60k (project cost) = 833x ROI possibly achievable for $atom holders. its a hard problem, and polkadot’s attempt to solve it chopped them up pretty badly, but, its also low-hanging fruit for the hub if we can solve it.

And, then also the willingness of the mission publiques team to translate learnings from the delib gov process experiment into recommendations and mock-ups for how to bring this kind of a process into an on-chain environment was another benefit perceived by AADAO reviewers.

Anyways, despite what AADAO reviewer committee felt was a strong value prop to $atom, a small but vocal minority of community members feel the connection of the mission publiques project lead to the WEF org is significantly-distasteful and poor optics for the ecosystem so as to override or negate any positive ROI benefits in the tradeoffs calculus, and, also, separately, there may be competing governance forum ideas in the works coming from a different set of opponents.

So now the community is starting to discuss this item in more focus (which is healthy).

We need to make strength in community gov our comparative advantage, let’s figure this out! :muscle::atom_symbol: