Talking purely from the perspective of Astrovault, is there any difference on whether the claw-backs should come first or second?
About the committee members, unless we decide to give everyone full-time salaries, my sense is that it is an almost impossible task to find experienced people that don’t also work for Cosmos projects
my two cents of the year: committees suck.
Wouldn’t be a dealbreaker, but from our perspective we’re already willing to spend more for what other projects get for free over and over… kinda sucks.
For us as Atom stakers, it would make a huge difference in that total demand would be much higher in the case of clawing back first (incl. grace period obv.)
Sure bring the buckets online but first auction only with all POL removed.
We love Stride and the Stride team but:
The atom community pool should consider Drop, Quark, and other chain native liquid staking projects if they want to succeed in pushing ATOM as liquidity on all Cosmos Zones.
More comments on the rest of the proposal will follow.
Will the compensation scheme be discussed and budgeted with the community when/If the time comes?
A comprehensive disclosure statement from @informalinc is mandatory, including but not limited to:
Detailed breakdown of Informal Systems’ stake in Stride:
a. Validator position and rewards
b. Token holdings
c. Any direct investments
Full disclosure of individual investments in Stride by Informal Systems’ principals
Clear acknowledgment of all potential conflicts of interest
If possible, an explanation of how these conflicts will be managed to ensure community benefit.
This proposal is categorically rejected in its current form. No reconsideration will be entertained without the aforementioned comprehensive disclosure statement from @informalinc @Thyborg
The integrity of community governance demands disclosure.
I will vote against until at least two LSTs participate and the conflict of interest is resolved.
Well crafted prop and I really resonate with the idea of using ATOM from the CP to bootstrap ATOM liquidity within the AEZ and broader Interchain, while simultaneously putting idle sitting $ATOM to work, earning some revenue for ATOM stakers.
Stride is the largest LST provider for ATOM, it’s part of the AEZ and has a soldi track record. Hence I don’t really understand why so many ppl are upset about them being chosen to liquid stake 500K ATOM.
However I agree with @Cosmos_Nanny that there are some undisclosed conflicts of interest between the two involved parties, Informal and Stride.
This is a clear YES vote, but only, if Informal Systems releases a public disclosure statement outlining their stake in Stride, as proposed by Cosmos Nanny.
The composition of the Committee members seems reasonable to me. It’s a thankless job that has to be done by someone, and I rather have some experienced folks that know what they are doing, are familiar with the procedures and have some skin in the game, rather than some newbies or outsiders that have little background knowledge about the Hub.
Agree with the past few posters.
As an aside, Drop is coming soon. They’ll also fit in the AEZ bucket, so hopefully they receive the same treatment as Stride as a first class citizen of the AEZ.
We’re excited about Hydro! This could be an interesting platform to monetize ATOM liquidity around the interchain.
This is partly the reason why we are supporting and pushing to have DAODAO on the Hub as soon as possible, since DAODAO is a dependency for Hydro.
We would however be remiss in our duties as stewards of the Cosmos Hub, if we didn’t ask you to consider the community feedback. You should consider executing on the clawbacks you indicated, first, before seeding the Hydro platform with more Community Pool funding.
Since there is already enough CP money floating around, we believe the community would prefer that Hydro’s seed comes from those clawbacks.
We should also note here, with Hub governance recently approving a gov-controlled ICA account on Neutron, we are currently in discussions about migrating funds that we are custoding on behalf of the Hub (ATOM/stATOM on Astroport Neutron) to Timewave (now called Valence). This would eliminate the need to have a multisig to exercise the wishes of governance on PoL deals.
That particular PoL deal was negotiated as part of Stride’s deal to onboard on to Interchain Security, for which Stride is already contributing fees to the Cosmos Hub. We believe that particular PoL deal should be omitted from any Hydro-related clawbacks.
It will however ultimately be up to the community to instruct us on how to proceed.
**Edited 26 July at 21.30 UTC to clarify our position on the Stride ICS POL deal.
Why do we “need” to launch Hydro first?
While this isn’t a Stride proposal, we’re chiming in as Stride contributors because this affects Stride as a member of the ecosystem, and we would like to clarify our view: Stride supports Hydro v1 treating all ATOM LSTs equally.
Over the past few days, there has been a flurry of discussion around Cosmos Hub’s upcoming Hydro protocol. As always, passionate community discussion is always a good thing, because it shows there are many people who deeply care about Cosmos Hub. The strength of the community is the strength of the chain.
As the Hydro forum post makes clear, Hydro will eventually be completely neutral regarding ATOM LSTs. Stride contributors are aware of and supportive of this eventual development of Hydro.
Informal Systems, the development company designing Hydro, likely chose a single ATOM LST in Hydro v1 temporarily to get it to market quickly (reduce the complexity of v1) and support an ICS chain while v2 is being developed.
The feedback from the community makes clear that they highly value neutrality from the outset. If it is desired by Cosmos Hub governance, then Stride contributors support launching Hydro v1 with full neutrality regarding ATOM LSTs from day one, so that all parts of Hydro that involve ATOM LSTs support multiple options. Since this has always been the stated eventual plan for Hydro, if Hub governance wants it then it makes sense to include it in Hydro v1.
In addition, from its initial announcement in May, a stated goal of Hydro has always been to recall existing Cosmos Hub POL deployments, so that ATOM can be redeployed via Hydro. Stride contributors have always been aware of and supportive of this goal.
We’re providing our thoughts on this matter as participants in the Cosmos ecosystem. But ultimately, the design of Hydro protocol is a decision that must be made by Cosmos Hub governance.
First I’d like to thank @Thyborg, the Informal team and all those involved in building Hydro. I believe there is a big need to streamline POL deployment in a more beneficial way for the $ATOM and its Stakers. We, at Citadel One, are excited for Hydro’s launch.
However, I feel like some of the concerns raised need to be addressed before moving forward. Specifically, the choice to deploy half of liquidity seed to a stATOM liquidity buckets. Here are a few thoughts about why we’d be in favour of deploying all liquidity in an $ATOM bucket:
Bidders will bear the commission cost:
With the current approach, the Hub’s CP will bear the commission costs incurred by Stride for the entire period regardless of the demand on stATOM liquidity.
On the other hand with a single liquidity bucket of $ATOM, Projects winning auctions who chose to deploy their liquidity to LSTs will have to bear the cost incurred by liquid staking with Stride (or any other provider).
It’s worth noting that this could lead to less demand for LSTs-related use cases as projects will have to factor in 21-day period to unstake ATOM before returning it. But at this early stage, this could be addressed by lengthening the deployment period until we have a better idea on how much demand there is for LSTs buckets.
No technical barriers:
Liquid staking is instant. Meaning that there are no barriers preventing projects seeking $stATOM to instantly convert their $ATOM to $stATOM after winning an auction.
Eliminates the concerns of favouring a specific LST provider:
Ideally, if there is to be an LST liquidity bucket it should be through LSM shares. It is my understanding that this is currently being explored. Proposing the use of stATOM until that happens will give Stride an advantage over other LSTs which might be harmful for Hydro in the long term as it affects the platform’s neutrality, esp towards LSD providers (potentially the biggest bidders on Hydro).
With a single liquidity bucket, these concerns are eliminated. We let bidders choose, which could result in an increased number of bidders ( other LSTs) and higher tributes to Hydro.
Validators’ alignment:
Stride has a whitelisted validator set. This could cause a misalignment between the Hub’s validators ( who are not receiving delegations) and Hydro.
Eliminating the stATOM liquidity buckets means winning projects will choose their own LST provider, allowing Hydro to stay neutral.
To sum up: There is no strong case for an stATOM liquidity bucket at this stage of Hydro’s development.
Lauding the “optimization” of POL? Please.
This proposal’s just another scheme for centralized control, with more first-mover entrenchment.
Real solutions that merit your time and consideration are built with neutrality and competitive balance as features from the outset, not as an afterthought, or as a promised “eventuality.”
Hydro is classic Informal playbook: privileged positioning for themselves and their cronies, with zero value for $ATOM holders. It’s buzzword exploitation masquerading as innovation. Demand financial disclosures. And have them found out.
Let’s dissect this Hydro farce:
Power Centralization: A 7-member Hydro committee? Please bruv. It’s oligarchy masquerading as optimization against hub governance. With clear conflicts of interest, this committee is compromised by its very composition.
Competitive Sabotage: This isn’t leveling the playing field; it’s cementing Stride’s market position, accruing benefits for their whitelisted vals, and everyone that has a sizable bag of $STRD. “Eventual neutrality” is moot when the game’s sufficiently rigged.
Auction Integrity: Impossible under these conditions.
DPS Monetization: Turning governance drama into a commodity? Lovely. Let’s incentivize more chaos and call it progress. This isn’t clever; it’s a recipe for more Thyborg manufactured DPS for complete cultural implosion.
Hydro is a symptom of everything going awry under Informal’s growing de facto leadership/ownership of tech stack, share of stack, and all that comes with it.
They’ve weaponized “optimization” to secure more control and funding. Their pattern? Develop unwanted, unused complexity, secure public funds, rinse, repeat.
More of their control just means more of their control.
And WHY is Informal lead BD for the Hub and AEZ?
Their track record doesn’t justify community’s given optimism or trust.
Let’s examine some numbers:
2022: 42.9 FTEs at $312k each, consuming 33.5% of ICF’s budget (Source: 2022 ICF Annual Report)
Now: ~70-100 FTEs, $20M estimated annual overhead (conservatively, this is my own informed estimate)
Private funding: Only $5.3M raised since 2019 (Source: Crunchbase & Informal Dossier, ICF Repo)
This means they have substantial operational costs and disproportionate reliance on public funding. This also means their several commercial endeavors are revenue generating failures. It’s just founder-entitled juggernaut juicing Cosmos welfare.
Internally, they’re afflicted with inefficient ops and non-transparent resources management; described as resembling a “traditional corporation (spinning its wheels)”.
Thyborg’s promise of “1000+ appchains”? While I recognize his statement is hyperbole, according to #839 Oversight Committee’s report he can’t onboard a single chain in Q2 2024 — even with additional FTE hired help.
Indicated by the numbers, Informal’s real business is governance extraction via manipulation and sabotage, with Hydro as the latest example. POL is about resource allocation. Can we trust “ideas” from those who profit from perpetuating the problem? Hydro is another cartelization gimmick from coordination challenge profiteers.
While I’m relieved more are beginning to see through this charade, I’m nauseated by the incessant ass-kissing. “Informal does great work…”
This drivel is so beyond tiresome. Reflexive genuflection to a bully. A pavlovian response that needs ridding from our discourses.
We don’t need to preface critique with legacy praise. Cut through the programmed niceties and call out the dev industrial complex and their rubbish ideas for what they are.
P.S. A critical question remains –How can we confirm that the $5.3 million from proposal #839 is actually dedicated to Jehan’s subunit within Informal?
Here’s the kicker: already asked. Their response? Providing such information is “impossible” as it would supposedly expose Informal’s complete accounting and financials.
Such evasion reeks of obfuscation. A legitimate, transparent operation should be able to account for designated funds. Grantees receiving public funds do this all the time. This raises valid questions about Informal’s fiscal practices and their true allocation of community given resources.
Their refusal to provide basic financial transparency is alarming. When are we going to get serious about proper oversight over funds given to Informal? My conjecture – they’ve received > $45 million from the ICF since 2019.
hi Grace
since we are into the (lack of) disclosure theme, since you’re one of the loud voices of Atom’s community, since you were the architect of the anti-Atom 2.0 campaign, and since more than one cartel are armful to the ecosystem,
could you disclose the content of the deal you made with Jae before he dropped the lawsuit?
There’s no “deal” to reveal.
There was a settlement.
He dropped the lawsuit with prejudice – meaning he can’t sue me again. And AiB reimbursed my legal fees.
And wtf does Atom2 or me whipping votes for NWV have to do with any of this?
I’m my own person, Tom.
Even the gov work you reference with the implied meaning that it’s somehow problematic – I did not do those things at the “behest” of the company or Jae Kwon.
I wanted to do it. It was my idea.
Jae didn’t think it was possible.
My voice and my opinions regarding Cosmos during and post AiB employment are entirely my own.
For you to keep insinuating that my opinions are not my own is beginning to feel sexist, disrespectful and a bit deranged since it’s your only method of clap back at me.
It’s demeaning that despite all the bullshit I went through, you still think that what I think lacks agency.
And your small mind hazards towards theorizing I made an illicit bargain with Jae bc he voted to support my elected role on AADAO oversight. That any opinion I may have is a product of quid pro quo.
It’s not.
Jae voted for me bc he knows better than anyone else that I can’t be bought. My voice sits on a spectrum of insubordination/independence and he thinks that makes me effective in an oversight capacity.
Your repetitive and moronic question only serve your masters who wish to advance the firm grip of partisanship and allegiance-driven agendas. Bc you’re saying that nothing is real or possible outside of fiefdom politics.
You’re saying it can only be this way.
If you can’t see us and our actions beyond “top/bottom” paradigms, maybe it’s bc you live that way. Stop projecting your issues.
I’m going to challenge you and tell you that you are wrong. And you need to change.
Stop denying me, stop denying Jae, the possibility that maybe we are just two imperfect and complicated people who can transcend our pride and display agreement for the sake of what we believe to be good for Cosmos.
Hi Grace I appreciate your passion for all things ATOM and believe that you stand for the interest of the retail staker (like myself).
At the same time I am noting that your language can be percieved as agressive and/or condencenting which does not help your/our course.
tu sais @Cosmos_Nanny ce n’est pas tant ta personne qui me pose problème, mais je me méfie toujours des gens qui utilisent 20 fois le mot “cartel” en 30 lignes, d’où qu’ils viennent.
comme de ceux qui semblent déceler cartelisation et corruption à la perfection quand il s’agit d’un groupe de personnes, mais gardent leurs oeillères bien en place quand il s’agit d’analyser les pratiques identiques voire pires de leurs proches présents ou passés, en détournant l’attention par de la philosophie quasi christique.
bref, il y a des critiques et demandes justes dans ce que tu énonces. et il y a aussi les symptômes d’une obsession par l’utilisation d’autres “buzzwords” que ceux que tu dénonces, des buzzwords qui attisent les haines et théories foireuses sans fondement factuel.
je m’éloigne petit à petit de cette communauté. pour de multiples raisons. l’une d’entre elle étant cette never-ending chasse aux sorcières (et les méthodes pour ce faire) qui castre l’innovation et nourrit le ressentiment. ce qu’il faudrait peut-être commencer à se dire, c’est que je ne dois pas être le seul dans ce cas.
bonne continuation o/
ps: i will ALWAYS deny Jae.
