ATOM Tokenomics Research Kickoff

Update: The tokenomics RFP is live now for review. See the full RFP here: Request for Proposals: ATOM Tokenomics Research

The next phase of ATOM’s evolution is officially underway. Starting soon, the Cosmos community will begin the formal research process to design a new, data-driven tokenomics model for ATOM.

As previously discussed, the goal is simple: build a sustainable, long-term utility proposition for ATOM that reflects its central role in the Cosmos ecosystem and positions the Hub for growth in the enterprise era.

TL;DR

  • This research process will focus on building a fundamental, revenue-based tokenomics model for ATOM, rather than jumping straight into individual mechanisms or flywheel ideas.

  • The initiative follows a five-step process: Request for Proposals → Research Team Selection → Information Gathering → Research Results & Analysis → Governance.

  • Core research goals include understanding ATOM’s current dynamics, simulating alternative models, identifying sustainable demand and supply drivers, and designing a long-term transition plan.

  • Early community discussions surfaced many mechanism ideas, but also made clear the need to separate fundamentals from add-on mechanisms and to define the research scope more clearly.

  • The end goal is a sustainable, non-circular tokenomics model powered by real fees and ecosystem adoption, enabling resilient growth for the Cosmos Hub and future mechanisms built on top.

This post lays out the framework for how the research process will unfold, including a rough timeline and the five major stages of work, as well as how people can get involved at each stage. Timelines may shift. This is an iterative process, not a rigid schedule, but the structure is designed to ensure transparency and continuous community involvement from start to finish.

Research Goals

Before diving into logistics, it’s worth restating what this research is meant to achieve. The objectives of the research, first outlined in October, remain unchanged:

  • Learn as much as possible about ATOM, its market dynamics, usage, and behavior today through comprehensive research.

  • Test and simulate how different tokenomics models would perform under various Hub and ATOM use-cases.

  • Chart a risk-minimized, sustainable transition plan from the current tokenomics mechanism.

  • Design and launch a new tokenomics model that gives the Hub and ATOM multiple ways to grow its utility across the ecosystem.

    • Notably, this includes synthesizing new and existing demand drivers for ATOM with supply-side changes to create a powerful economic flywheel.

These goals guide every step of the process described below.

The Five-Step Process

The research initiative will unfold in five distinct steps:

  1. Request for Proposals

  2. Research Team Selection

  3. Information Gathering

  4. Research Results & Analysis

  5. Governance

Each phase has a defined purpose and will involve both Cosmos Labs and the broader community in meaningful ways.

Step 0: Takeaways from Initial Community Discussions

The community has shared that they are eager to contribute to the tokenomics discussion, so we opened up a public working group on telegram to act as a town square to host these discussions. The results showed just how passionate the Cosmos community continues to be, with thousands of messages sent in the group over the span of just a few days, and many incredible ideas surfaced. Some of these ideas include:

  • Rewarding long-term stakers more by gradually increasing staking rewards over time to favor long-term holders.

  • Lowering Inflation, either all at once or via a phased and replacement approach

  • Unifying the ecosystem under ATOM as the reserve, gas, and settlement asset

  • Variable inflation model depending on fee accrual

  • And many more!

One recurring message we kept seeing in the course of those discussions was there was a desire for the research to move faster and requests for Cosmos Labs to take more ownership over the scope of the research. Message received.

As a result of this process, we’re better defining exactly what’s in scope for the research. There were many interesting mechanisms discussed as part of the initial discussions, but it’s important to distinguish between those mechanisms and the fundamental tokenomics model upon which all future mechanisms will be built.

Osmosis Tokenomics Example - Fundamentals versus Mechanisms

As an example of the difference between tokenomics fundamentals and associated mechanisms, look at the Osmosis tokenomics. Fundamentally, Osmosis creates value for the OSMO token by capturing fees from various sources within the Osmosis protocol. Over the years, numerous mechanisms have been developed on top of that revenue model, such as driving a portion of fees toward OSMO stakers, buying back and burning the token, and other methods of gradually replacing inflation with fees.

Similarly, we need to adjust the fundamental tokenomics model of ATOM before it makes sense to build individual flywheel mechanisms aimed at driving ATOM usage. It’s important to segment the conversation and the research accordingly.

In addition, any changes to the fundamental model need to be accepted by the community via governance before it makes sense to add flywheels. The upcoming tokenomics RFP will be targeted at building that fundamental model.

As with the Osmosis example, the fundamental tokenomics model for ATOM should be revenue/fee based. In this case, however, fees could accrue from things such as the enterprise adoption and usage of the Cosmos Stack and/or associated services, apps or products.

This is similar to the recent tokenomics announcements updates by zkSync and Uniswap with their revenue-based tokenomics models. ATOM can get ahead of the game by adopting this type of model.These models are strong because they favor flexibility and diversity, with the ability to build out multiple additional tokenomics mechanisms on top of them.

Importantly, this type of model is also non-circular. Many tokenomics models today are circular, relying on purely internal inputs to drive scarcity or artificial token growth. As an example, veTokenomics models for dexes rely on forced token lockups to keep supply scarce in order to offset the sell-side pressures of token emissions. The main issue with circular models such as this is that once the token price begins to decrease, the entire circular economy collapses in upon itself, creating an inverted flywheel (see Curve).

With real sustainable revenues from enterprise adoption of the Cosmos stack and/or other mechanisms, we don’t need to design these circular tokenomics systems for ATOM anymore. Rather, we can build a model that adapts supply-side dynamics to revenue growth in order to drive sustainable, real growth for ATOM. This model will survive regardless of short-term ATOM volatility so long as the fees continue to exist and accrue. The RFP will set a revenue-based constraint for the research to focus on. In the meantime, other ideas may be presented in the forum in a separate section.

Step 1: Request for Proposals [Current stage]

Starting soon, Cosmos Labs will release the Tokenomics RFP on the Cosmos Hub forum for public review and feedback.

In parallel, the RFP will be circulated to a number of respected research firms with deep experience in blockchain economics and protocol design, though anyone is welcome to submit a proposal of their own.

To ensure fairness, proposals will first be submitted privately to Cosmos Labs before being republished publicly on the Hub forums for open feedback. This prevents undercutting of bids while maintaining transparency once the bid process is complete.

Firms will have roughly three weeks to submit their proposals.

How to Get Involved:

  • Validators: We’ll be hosting our first validator ecosystem call on this and other topics in December. Join the Cosmos Hub Validator telegram group if you haven’t already for the announcement (Validators, DM me on telegram @RoboMcGobo if you’re interested).

  • Community: Keep an eye out for the RFP on the Cosmos Hub forums and prepare to give your feedback there.

Step 2: Research Team Selection

Once submissions close, we’ll organize public feedback sessions where the community can discuss the proposals, and participating firms will have the opportunity to present their ideas live.

After the review process, Cosmos Labs will select two to four firms to conduct the research based on familiarity with the Cosmos ecosystem, demonstrated success in tokenomics design, and overall cost and quality of approach. Selecting multiple firms ensures diverse methodologies and perspectives, a key ingredient for robust modeling and resilient design. Community feedback will be part of the review process in firm selection.

How to Get Involved: Read each proposal and provide feedback in the relevant sections of the forum. We’ll communicate any public calls in advance to give the community an opportunity to ask pointed questions.

Step 3: Information Gathering

With research teams in place, the process moves into the data-collection phase. Over several weeks, the selected research firms will:

  • Dive deeply into Cosmos Hub’s current tokenomics, emission schedules, and existing demand drivers.

  • Conduct stakeholder interviews with ATOM holders, validators, developers, and ecosystem partners.

  • Map how different stakeholder groups interact with and depend on ATOM today.

  • Simulate some of the different approaches suggested by, and ideas gathered from, the community.

The goal is to understand not only how the system works in theory but how it functions in practice, as well as its impact on the various Hub / ATOM stakeholders. Armed with that understanding, the research teams will begin building out economic models and sharing preliminary findings publicly as their work progresses.

How to Get Involved: This will be the most critical component of the community’s involvement. We will organize public and private (solo and group) interview sessions between the researchers and validators / the community. We want to solicit a broad sample size of stakeholders to give the researchers as much context as possible on ATOM, the Hub, and the ecosystem.

More details on specific feedback groups will be posted in the forum and on socials as we get more details.

Step 4: Research Results & Analysis

Each research firm will produce a draft report outlining its proposed model and findings. These drafts will be released for community review and feedback.

As feedback is collected, the reports may be revised to address errors, assumptions, or nonviable components. Once all reports are finalized, Cosmos Labs and the community will work together to synthesize the strongest elements of each into a single, unified tokenomics framework.

This composite model will then be refined into a governance proposal (or series of proposals) for formal review on the Hub.

How to get involved: Give your feedback on each research report, and help us identify which components of the various reports may be valuable to add to others.

Step 5: Governance

By the time the proposal reaches the governance stage, the community will already be familiar with its content. The proposal will undergo one final round of public discussion on the Cosmos Hub forum. After any final edits or clarifications, the proposal (or series of proposals) will be submitted for an on-chain vote.

If passed, Cosmos Labs will begin enshrining the new tokenomics mechanism in code, marking the formal start of ATOM’s next chapter.

How to get involved: Vote! This has the potential to be one of the most important governance proposals in Cosmos history. It will be all the more impactful if the entire community shows up to make their voices heard.

The Road Ahead

The launch of the tokenomics research process is a chance to align the Cosmos community around a shared vision for how ATOM can evolve over the years ahead. Over the coming months, expect active discussion, public updates, and frequent collaboration between research teams, Cosmos Labs, and the wider community.

If you want to participate, start by joining the Cosmos Hub forums where all discussions, drafts, and updates will be posted.

The process begins soon. Let’s make it count.

Disclaimer

Cosmos Labs has been engaged by the Interchain Foundation (ICF) to conduct research on, and an assessment of, how best to support the health and long-term sustainability of the Cosmos Hub and the wider ATOM ecosystem. This work is focused solely on analysis, research, and community-oriented recommendations. Nothing in this process should be interpreted as financial advice, an effort to influence the market for ATOM, or any intention to manage, promote, or affect the price, value, or trading behavior of ATOM. This work does not treat ATOM as a security, nor should any part of it be understood as implying future value, returns, or investment expectations. The views and proposals developed through this engagement are for the benefit of the ecosystem and do not create obligations or responsibilities for either Cosmos Labs or the ICF.

26 Likes

Great to see this initiative.

My gut instinct says the questions being asked (to be answered by research) are incredibly important.

There is nearly an infinite amount of granular data mining that can be done from multiple vectors (sentiment, onchain, user interviews) but the data being gathered is only as useful as the questions attempting to be answered.

Some fundamental questions that could be asked (and I want to re-iterate this should probably be narrowed down to like, 5 of the most important questions).

1. What is ATOM supposed to do?

2. How does the Cosmos Hub actually make money today?

3. How should ATOM holders get paid from that money?

More staking rewards? Burns? Treasury? Something else?

4. How much inflation do we really need to keep the chain secure?

If security fails, everything fails.

5. When Cosmos gets more real revenue, how do we safely reduce inflation?

6. How are people actually using ATOM today?

Not theories. Actual user behavior.

7. What would make people want to use ATOM more?

8. Does this new token model survive bad markets, crashes, and low fees?

9. How do we know if the new tokenomics is working?

We need simple metrics the community can track.

TL;DR:

The research only matters if it answers the right questions. We can mine endless data, but it’s useless without a clear understanding of what we’re trying to solve. The focus should be narrowed to a handful of fundamentals: what ATOM is for, how the Hub earns revenue, how that revenue should flow to ATOM holders, what level of inflation is needed for security, how and when inflation can be reduced, how ATOM is actually used today, what would drive real demand, whether the model survives stress, and how we track success.

Everything else is noise.

Cheers :slight_smile:

16 Likes

This is extremely exciting, and the most important upcoming proposal likely of the next decade for ATOM. I invite everyone to take this seriously, and help us - for the love of god - turn ATOM into the top-10 asset it was born to be.

One thing to call out specifically is flexibility. The truth is, Cosmos does not struggle for adoption. We have over 200 chains building on our stack, and some of the largest chains use our technology under the hood. Like Linux, we have won the “adoption war” so far. But also like Linux, we haven’t figured out how to monetize. There are many paths to doing so - and we do NOT definitively know which path is the right one yet.

The reason we’re going for institutions is because, unlike many of the long-tail of chains today, they can pay us for Cosmos software and solutions. It’s as simple as that - we have the opportunity to talk to customers with budgets they can spend with us, which is something Cosmos has never done before. How we monetize - and what we monetize - we’re actively exploring and experimenting with. We don’t know if they want to pay for the stack itself (licensed), specific modules, relaying, liquidity, or just consulting services. Whatever it is, we want it to be repeatable and scalable.

That’s why it’s so important to not decide - ahead of time - how we monetize ATOM. We need flexibility that matches where we are in the PMF journey. I know people (including myself) have waited for a long time for certainty. What we (Cosmos Labs) inherited was an ecosystem and challenged asset that had zero - ZERO - business model. Everything after that has been our own experimentation and honest effort.

So - be patient. If you’re not patient, the process won’t move any faster, and it will just slow things down. If you think something isn’t moving, ask why - we likely have an answer.

This RFP & kickoff represents the best compromise between Cosmos Labs’ current position - entering the institutional market, building its customer base, and experimenting with new solutions, and running a community-driven process to led token holders govern the way they deserve.

What we need from you:

  1. We need validators to vote for this. My goal is we make this prop so good, it’s unanimous. If you are a validator, talk to us. We are ready to engage, be challenged, and answer tough questions. We want this to help you business long term, even if inflation goes down.
  2. Participate. Add something useful to the conversation. One thoughtful message is 1000x more influential than spamming half-thoughts over and over.
  3. Seek consensus. We are not going to make everyone happy. The final outcome probably will have parts you like, and parts you hate. But we, as a community, need to “disagree and commit.” That means, whatever solution we choose, we’re going to fucking send it and do everything we can to make it work. It’s not about making the right decision, it’s about making the decision right.
  4. Have fun! It’s not every day that you get to participate in an honest process of reforming a $1bn+ asset. This is what crypto is for, and what its creators imagined. Meet people, try to understand their viewpoints - and know that we’re all working towards the same goal: Make ATOM an extremely successful asset.

Thank you @RoboMcGobo for putting this together, and so proud to be working alongside ALL of you to make this happen. We’ve been though so much shit as a community, but that means we’ve learned from every possible mistake. I have full confidence we have the pieces we need to reform this asset into something we love holding for the next 10 years.

ATOM1KLFG!

19 Likes

Bad idea to acept proposal of ICF after Proposal #952 in Cosmos

We already voted that we don’t trust ICF, and all their proposals are. not in the interests of Cosmos Hub, but in own private interests

5 Likes

Good thing our private interest is to make ATOM go up and become a sustainable ATOM-funded foundation

10 Likes

Hi everyone,

I’m wondering whether a global, “bubble-style” diagram of the Cosmos Hub economic flows already exists.

I’m looking for a high-level visual map that includes all current mechanisms, such as:

  • fee pool
  • distribution pool
  • inflation
  • ICS revenue
  • community tax
  • staking rewards (validators / delegators)
  • community pool
  • feemarket collector (burn)
  • etc…

and the percentage allocations / value flows between these components.

In short, a complete overview of how value moves through the Cosmos Hub.

If something like this already exists, I’d be grateful for a link or reference.

If not, I’d like to propose that we research and design such a diagram as part of the ongoing work around the current + new ATOM tokenomics.

It could also be very valuable to eventually include this type of visual schema in the official Cosmos Hub documentation, to help users, contributors, and developers better understand the system’s economic flows.

Thanks in advance for any insights or interest in collaborating on this!

6 Likes

You mean something like what @JohnnyWyles have done for osmosis ?

I also support to include such representations, it really does help to visualized and comprehend shared ideas

4 Likes

Any visual is fine, as long as it’s clear enough for anyone to understand. But yes that is the idea :slight_smile:

We need a model of the current Cosmos Hub and ATOM tokenomics to better understand all the different mechanisms at play. Once we have this baseline model, we can experiment by rearranging the “bubbles” and exploring whether improved interactions between modules, applications, and economic flows emerge.

4 Likes

Very excited for this to move forward, great thanks @RoboMcGobo for the work on pushing this and the people in the community that are driving positive discussion in the working group. @Guinch_Roze’s data and dashboard idea is a great addition.

There is a dashboard in development and we can ensure the research workstream outputs the data needed for it.

Also aligned with @Carter_Lee_Woetzel - asking the right questions is goal number one. The more we know about where we stand today, the more we can reform the asset in ways that make an impact.

Any other questions we’d like answered drop them here please for consideration in research or as we produce reports with preliminary findings.

5 Likes

On behalf of Govmos, we would like to express our strong support for this structured and community-driven initiative to research and refine ATOM tokenomics. A data-driven approach is precisely what the Cosmos Hub needs to solidify its long-term strategic positioning. We commend the organizers for creating this collaborative framework.

While we believe this process is vital, we see the most effective role for Govmos not as direct participants within the research working groups, but as dedicated, constructive reviewers of the subsequent outputs. Our commitment is to provide in-depth analysis and advice to the various proposers, ensuring the complex and interconnected nature of the Hub’s economy is thoroughly considered.

To that end, we wish to highlight several key areas we believe are critical for the research to address. These pillars are essential for enhancing ATOM’s utility and securing the Hub’s future as the Schelling point of the Interchain.

Key Areas for Consideration

  1. Incentivizing Long-Term Alignment: The Hub’s security and stability are predicated on the commitment of its stakeholders. We strongly encourage research into mechanisms that reward long-term stakers by gradually increasing their staking rewards over time. Such a model would naturally favor holders with long-term conviction and disincentivize mercenary capital.

  2. A Responsible Path to Lower Inflation: Lowering ATOM’s inflation is a critical goal for its long-term sustainability as a reserve asset. We advocate for exploring a phased approach where inflation is methodically reduced as it is replaced by other forms of value accrual. A sudden reduction without a corresponding value replacement could be disruptive, but a clear, gradual transition would be a powerful narrative.

  3. Variable Inflation Linked to Economic Activity: The current inflation model, while previously designer for interchain security, is largely disconnected from today’s Hub real economic throughput. We believe a sophisticated tokenomics model should incorporate a variable inflation rate that is incorporating the liquid staking ratio. A model that we have shared more than a year ago: CHIPs discussion phase: Re-designing the Inflation Formula

Our Commitment and Role

By maintaining an external advisory position, our goal is to serve as a well-informed and objective resource for the community and the research teams. We will thoroughly review the models and proposals that emerge from this process, offering detailed feedback aimed at ensuring they are robust, sustainable, and aligned with the core principles of the Cosmos Hub.

We look forward to the insights this research will uncover and are eager to collaborate with the selected teams to forge the next chapter of ATOM’s evolution.


Thank you for reading,
The Govmos Team.
pro-delegators-sign

13 Likes

I’d like to share a suggestion regarding the ongoing tokenomics research. After reviewing the current model, I wonder if exploring an alternative structure might offer better long term sustainability for ATOM and the Cosmos Hub economy.

Specifically, the idea is to organize the Hub’s revenue and treasury flow into a more modular, transparent framework. Instead of a single, undifferentiated treasury, the model separates operations into three dedicated units:

• Treasury Core for operational stability

• Treasury Growth Fund for ecosystem expansion, grants, and partnerships

• Treasury Market Operations Unit for buybacks, burn mechanisms, and liquidity management

This structure might help align the Hub’s incentives with real on-chain and off-chain revenue streams, while also providing clearer governance, better capital allocation, and healthier long term token value dynamics. It also allows new sources of income (enterprise partnerships, services, IBC-related fees, MEV redistribution, etc.) to plug into the Hub without complicating the economic design.

This is just a suggestion that this kind of multi-layer treasury and revenue system could potentially offer a more flexible and scalable foundation than the current model. It might be worth exploring during the research phase to see whether such an architecture could strengthen ATOM’s monetary design and increase resilience as the ecosystem grows.

Would be great to hear thoughts from others involved in the discussion.

7 Likes

Hello, and thank you for initiating this important discussion!

We fully support this initiative and would be glad to contribute to its development and implementation.

The Need to Reduce Inflation

In our view, the Cosmos Hub requires a meaningful reduction in the current inflation rate.

The existing inflationary model imposes continuous dilution on long-term holders and weakens the macroeconomic positioning of $ATOM within the broader interchain ecosystem.

A more conservative and sustainable issuance model would help strengthen the token’s economic foundation.

Introducing Active Burning / Buyback Mechanisms

We also believe that Cosmos should explore and implement active token-burning or buyback mechanisms.

Such tools could:

• Offset inflationary pressures

• Create consistent value accrual for $ATOM

• Better align long-term incentives for validators, stakers, and ecosystem builders

Mechanisms of this kind have proven effective in improving token economics across multiple networks and could significantly reinforce $ATOM’s competitiveness.

Expanding Utility for $ATOM

It is essential for the Hub to continue developing new and meaningful use cases for the token.

The Hydro protocol is an excellent example of how $ATOM can gain additional utility and become increasingly valuable within the interchain economy.

We would be glad to support the further evolution of Hydro and hope to see additional protocols that expand the utility surface of $ATOM across liquidity, security, and interchain applications.

Let’s make $ATOM great again!

4 Likes

No offense, but historically I have rarely seen a tokenomics research actually deliver meaningful impact. Cosmos (via AADAO and others) has previously funded similar research projects that have not led to meaningful impact, and there’s meaningful reason to believe “this time it’ll be different”, I’d be curious on why.

This is a plan to make a plan, and the work of making the plan is outsourced to an external team with little to no skin-in-the-game.

This feels like the equivalent of hiring a deloitte or a PWC to fix a company.

In the words of Steve Jobs:
”Coming in and making recommendations and not owning the results and not owning the implementation, I think, is a fraction of the value and a fraction of the opportunity to learn and get better.”

While Osmosis has its own set of struggles, the Osmosis tokenomics mechanisms revolve around the product, not the other way around. I’d imagine that’d be the same for the Hub as well.

2 Likes

This is a good point. @effortcapital and others received massive funding from the AADAO already for extensive tokenomics research, the only good idea that came out of that, the VP tax was promised to be implemented but then as usual nothing happened. Instead of paying so much again for new research, much better to just talk with EffortCapital to actually get something from the huge amount already paid and implement the VP tax. Moreover, there was a huge tokenomics change recently with the max inflation parameter reduced by 50% from 20% to 10% with the promise as usual to ‘pump’ ATOM, and the opposite actually happened, before that proposal to halve max inflation ATOM was around $10 and staking ratio close to 70%, and now price around $2 and staking ratio below 60%, maybe the best research is actually fixing previous tokenomics changes mistakes?

Exactly, consulting firms they come, give some advice and get huge payment for that, then they leave and they don’t care if their advice is useful at all or give any result. Private equity firms is different because they own the companies, so the advice and changes they want to do, they actually do them and need to be sure they bring good result since it is their own investment. No upfront payments should be done to any external firms. It should be locked ATOM and only release slowly after their advice implemented and if there are good results

It wouldn’t hurt to review it, but VP tax was in discussion before aadao. It was around prop 69 or def after prop 82. just ask Jacob (don’t)

Also remember that the AADAO tokenomics research was for a different kind of hub (roadmap/gameplan).

No, if you check the forum history the first mention of VP tax was a post by @effortcapital because of the AADAO funding to blockworks research where effortcapital worked. I tried to follow up several times with effortcapital who promised several times that the proposal would be put on-chain and implemented, but it never happened. I don’t have to ask anyone because I was one of the main reviewers of that proposal and other research proposals funded by AADAO. In fact, I was one of the main reasons why the AADAO scam was finally discovered and the AADAO dismantled saving millions of $ for the hub. When the AADAO was first announced, I was one of the few against it and warned the community. After two years wasting millions of the hub treasury, I managed to convince youssef to allow community members to apply to join for some positions as well rather than all hand picked by him, he allowed it finally and then some community members including grace (cosmos nanny) joined, and then grace showed all the corruption that then led to the dismantling of the AADAO, and it is in fact grace for the last months the one doing the liquidation of the AADAO

1 Like

It feels like there are two questions here, namely (1) do we need to commission research to carry this initiative forward, and (2) what level of ownership should Cosmos Labs and other Hub contributors take over the research and the ultimate direction the new tokenomics is headed.

For the first question, imo the answer is an unequivocal yes. There are components of this initiative that Labs (and the Hub community more broadly) simply doesn’t have the capacity or resources to handle well / in a timely manner. Particularly:

  • Quantitative financial modeling of the flows for ATOM today. E.g., of tokens that are sold today, which user groups (stakers, long-term holders, traders, etc) do those tokens come from and in what proportion? How much ATOM inflation is actually sold vs held (for 3,6,12 months) or re-staked? How does the price of ATOM react to individual sales of X tokens? X*2? X*10? Where does most of the purchaser activity come from today? If you need a reference point for how we’re thinking about this, it’s very similar to what Osmosis originally retained Numia to do a couple of years ago before starting its most significant tokenomics changes

  • Evaluating historical stakeholder impact and behavior after historical tokenomics changes (particularly Prop 848)

  • Mapping out future change estimates for both of the above under various scenarios related to changes in inflation (both positive and negative), sources / amount of revenue accruing to the Hub, differing market scenarios, etc.

Mostly data modeling given various inputs, which leads me to the second question (how many of those inputs should come from us / community). I think it’s clear that the community is comfortable with Labs and other contributors having more ownership over what the ultimate model looks like. We’re actively discussing now what that might look like and adjusting the RFP accordingly, but my sense is that what we’ll likely do is make a more concrete suggestion as to the model itself, and have that model be informed by, and stress-tested by, the research firms before being submitted to governance for approval.

As to why previous research efforts on ATOM tokenomics failed, my understanding is that it wasn’t so much about the research itself, but rather about the inability of the AADAO to carry forward what was funded on a technical level. It was a product of the dysfunctional multi-contributor model that the Hub had in the past. We now have one team driving change and the roadmap, and that team is fully bought in on bringing the ultimate output of this initiative to fruition on the Hub.

1 Like

Honestly, at this point we should just cut inflation to 6%, for example, or at least act based on the data we already have, and have the ICF delegate its tokens to the validators who actually show up and contribute. That doesn’t need months of research. It is a straightforward change and should be done asap.

If you want to bring in tokenomics nerds to build fancy models and long-term frameworks on top of that, go for it. Whatever we do now can always be adjusted later.

But we can’t stay stuck in “planning the plan” forever. It’s time to act, and to act quickly. We don’t need to understand the atomic structure of a chair before we sit on it.

8 Likes

This, agree with your opinion

1 Like

Why? It is interesting how in most projects people suggest to cut inflation arbitrarily as a quick solution to ‘pump’ the token price. There are countless examples where the opposite actually happened, the price dropped after a large inflation cut. There are very complex dynamics, people stake because the risk-reward makes sense to them, if you cut the inflation/APR so much, then many will no longer find the risk-reward interesting, risk I mean for locking the tokens for several weeks and the volatility of the token. Then, all those stakers for which the new risk-reward is no longer interesting, will unstake, sell the ATOM, driving the price lower and move to better yield opportunities. Moreover, given the lower yield, most users won’t find it interesting and won’t buy ATOM to stake. If we act on the data we already have, then we should change back max inflation parameter from 10% to 20%

1 Like