ATOM needs to capture more ecosystem value

Strongly agree with Ethan here


I’m actually a very firm believer in finding ways to charge money for open source software. Revenue is completely essential to continued development and code quality


I am not talking about max value extraction or high yield. I am talking about sustaining ATOM to be able to do its job. This, although many i see have aversion to that, one way or the other does involve generating value for ATOM from the products/servises/utility it provides to its users.

This is in no way contradictory to Building Something Different.


it would in fact be enough to create a signaling proposal on each of the cosmos chain for the micro taxes on their technical stack to allow the maintenance of cosmos infrastructure by the hub. in this case, yes any request for financing would logically be allowed to be requested on the hub forum.


I understand this point very well and am also aware that there is 100s of alternatives in crypto where you could invest and “capture more value” but at the end of the day ATOM is the major driver for the ecosystem. Not only governance but also incentivizing builders(trough accelerators programs or even companies like Confio). You can’t expect the ecosystem to accelerate its growth when the ressources stay constant or even drop due to loss of confidence in ATOM itself. If the Cosmos Hub dies, the ecosystem dies. But if the Cosmos Hub gets more ressources to reinvest into growth we will all be happy.

1 Like

I do not think that these proposals would be accepted, and in addition to that, I’m not really sure that they would be appropriate.

I think that the chains that you are thinking about charging taxes, would want assurances that the hub simply is not able to deliver.

Just kind of throwing this out here, skip tends to deliver.

1 Like

Just to clarify a little bit, the IBC network is actually carefully designed to avoid a hard dependency on any single chain as you describe here.

Because of that, the cosmos hub could die and everything else would be totally fine.

1 Like

Well yes, but if the Cosmos Hub dies this would hinder the number one goal. Creating a rich tech stack/platform for builders.

1 Like


(Bc post must be 20 characters kek)


the tax would be so minimal and insignificant that it would remain almost transparent both for the chain in question and for the consumers themselves. I think that the cosmos philosophy lives in everyone in the IBC and cosmos stack ecosystem, since a large part of these people are also and above all atom hodlers. A thoughtful and well detailed proposal which stipulates that any funding request is made on the hub in exchange for a micro tax on IBC for example, I am convinced that this would pass if the emphasis is placed on the maintenance of the cosmos tech stack. Personally I don’t care about paying 0.00000001 atom extra in fees for a swap

1 Like

Without steb: I have no clue how this will capture value for ATOM guys. Please do not confuse network effects with earning from licensing

The problem is validators tax delegators which introduces unnecessary politics.

$ATOM validators take and pool 10% of delegator’s staking rewards through taxes.

The taxes for securing the network and risking your capital with a 21 day lock up were increased 5x from 2% to 10% in prop88.

Often validators develop chains and tooling that is useful or profitable for themselves & other validators, then award themselves whatever validators think its worth from the CP because validators control aggrigate voting power of their delegators. Rarely are pooled delegator funds spent on things useful or profitable for users/delegators. so delegators are stuck paying for validator tooling and Validator’s dev salaries that lower validator cost but has no benefit to users.

If validators didnt tax and pool delegator funds to pay themselves, no politics would be necessary.

to clarify: i say validators, because validators control the vote. i dont mean to imply validators are acting maliciously. I am simply pointing out the effects of misaligned incentives within $ATOMs economic system as percieved by a delegator.

For those who are still wondering where ATOM could derive value from its utility, look no further than the existing investment banking related services. A topic that we have covered quite a number of times in this forum. An high-level overview is shared in this post:

For a deeper dive in this investment banking thesis for the Hub, we would recommend reading our full report on the Cosmos Ecosystem as a decentralized B2B2C network (business to business to customer):

Naturally, this represents solely our perspective and input on the intricate matter of enhancing utility for the Hub. However, recent developments have only reinforced our initial projections, at least up to this juncture. We’re keen to observe what the future holds and challenge the validity of our hypothesis.

Thanks for reading !