After catching up on the discussions from the past seven days, I would like to share my perspective on the two points that matter most to me: the Paxos proposal and the possible reduction of the Cosmos Hub validator set.
I largely agree with Scott’s distinction between distribution and demand, as well as with TRAVE’s concerns regarding accountability.
I understand the strategic case for making ATOM available through Paxos, but personally, I am still not fully convinced. I may not have all the information available to Cosmos Labs or Paxos, and under favorable conditions this integration could become genuinely valuable for ATOM and potentially support its value over time.
However, based on the public proposal alone, the Hub is paying for access to potential distribution—not for confirmed listings, users or demand. No individual brokerage is committed to activating ATOM, and Paxos has explained that payment cannot be conditional on KPIs.
This does not mean the integration has no value. It means that evaluating whether 300,740 USDC is justified remains difficult with the information currently available. Are there concrete signals of interest from brokerage partners that can be shared with the community? If commercial commitments cannot be provided, could Paxos at least commit to transparent post-launch reporting on activated partners, custody balances and trading volumes?
The second issue is the possible reduction of the validator set, and I think Snow-Fall is a perfect example of why the timing and process matter.
Snow-Fall is currently ranked around 150 with approximately 18,000 ATOM delegated. We are not yet profitable on the Cosmos Hub, and we are not currently eligible for an ICF delegation. Nevertheless, we are actively doing the work required to improve our eligibility and demonstrate that we can bring value to the Hub.
We participate in governance and validator discussions, maintain our infrastructure, follow upgrades closely, contribute educational and analytical content about the Hub, and try to give Cosmos and ATOM visibility outside the usual community circles. We were also present and responsive during the recent security update.
We are not claiming that our current stake makes us economically sustainable. That is precisely the point: we are trying to grow, strengthen our participation and build the track record required to become eligible for foundation support.
If the validator set were reduced to 150 today, Snow-Fall could be pushed out almost immediately, based solely on its current stake ranking and without any additional process assessing its activity, technical reliability, geographical contribution or work for the Hub. We could therefore be excluded before having a realistic opportunity to complete the path that the ecosystem itself encourages us to follow.
This is not a request for special protection for Snow-Fall. It is a concrete example showing that stake alone does not measure the full value of a validator. Other small operators may also be active, reliable and contributing while still building their delegator base.
Cosmos Labs previously suggested waiting for Phase 2 of the tokenomics research and, if a reduction is justified, proceeding gradually in stages of 20–30 validators. Could you clarify which ranges are actually being modelled: 180 to 160, 150, or potentially lower over time? Could governance participation, upgrade responsiveness, technical reliability, geographical diversity, testnet participation and ecosystem contributions also be considered alongside delegated stake?
Finally, staking is outside the current Paxos proposal, but it could become important later. If institutional staking is eventually concentrated among one or two large or white-label operators while the validator set is simultaneously reduced, smaller contributing validators could face pressure from both directions. This interaction deserves to be considered before either process advances too far.
We remain open to institutional adoption and to a serious discussion about validator sustainability. On Paxos, however, I remain undecided with the information currently available. I simply want to better understand the expected benefits, while ensuring that active contributors are given a fair opportunity to prove their value before a purely stake-based reduction removes them from the set.