# "ATOM ONE" Constitution Proposal **URL:** \ **Category:** Proposal Ideas\ **Created:** [October 3, 2022, 10:29am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/atom-one-constitution-proposal/7514 "2022-10-03T10:29:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 15
**Author:** ![jacobgadikian](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/jacobgadikian/32/6994_2.png) [@jacobgadikian](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/jacobgadikian)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2022, 3:19pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/atom-one-constitution-proposal/7514/15 "2022-10-04T15:19:52Z")
I think that the way that inflation was discussed in the whitepaper was very unclear. Thus, I’m in support of a one-time issuance of 69,420,808 atoms into the treasury. I am also in support of a minimal hub, to the degree that I’d like to write it over the next few days. Gaia’s code has become a little unuly for minimalism, with a good example of that being the defunct exchange code that must linger because LP’d tokens have been sent all over IBC. Atom 2.0 isn’t minimal. Here are the risks as I understand them: - technical complexity is increased - there is a chance that the mev related stuff sells out the hub to mevoors. There are safeguards to this but it’s worth mentioning. - the issuance thing is and always will be a gamble Jae I had the same reaction that you did to the wp. (specifically the changes to inflation – it is a vast wp and I need to get my head around your specific ls concerns still) I felt that the section on new issuance wasn’t clear at all. Also, after speaking with some of the paper’s authors, I think it is well intentioned. Your concerns about the hub competing with other cosmos chains are super legit. I think that we should try and get something about that that into the charter. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/atom-one-constitution-proposal/7514)._