Connecting Businesses: Empowering Stack Adoption with a Data Bridge (using NFTs)

Hub Proposals Community Spend
1

:hourglass_not_done: Update (July 26th, 2025) – Prop #1006 is onchain for voting

Vote here: Mintscan

Proposal #1005 failed due to clarity, $ATOM alignment, and cost issues. We’ve listened to community’s feedback and ICL’s vision, focusing on enterprise needs and $ATOM value.

Alignment with ICL Vision

  • Businesses seek:
    1. Sovereignty: running their custom blockchains and e.g. not relying on Ethereum.
    2. Interoperability: Data/token exchange via IBC Eureka, routed through the Hub.
  • Supports businesses, enhancing Stack adoption and $ATOM value per ICL’s vision.

For details check Cryptocito’s full interview with Mag here: https://x.com/Cryptocito/status/1945214389902029043

Here’s a technical web2/web3 analogy between Smart Contracts using IBC + Bridge and Web applications using TCP + HTML:

IBC Eureka + Bridge in Web3 is, simply said, like TCP + HTML in Web2: While IBC is the base layer connecting blockchains (like TCP links servers), our bridge adds an application layer for business data (like HTTP delivers web pages).

Our bridge, being built on top of IBC Eureka, transfers complex data (via NFTs) - including(!) ownership - between smart contracts or wallets across blockchains.

For example, a supply chain smart contract on custom Cosmos chain A could send an NFT with shipment metadata to a partner’s contract on a custom Cosmos chain B, ensuring secure, verifiable ownership transfer.

Asset Bridge Clarification

  • NFTs - in general - is just a data store (e.g., IDs, certificates) for enterprises, customizable to their needs (e.g., a bank creating loan documents)
  • Bridge uses CosmosEVM and IBC Eureka, 100% $ATOM-aligned via the Hub.
  • EVM is key, paused on the Hub, but vital for business smart contracts and interoperability.

Project Scope

  • Solidity ICS-721 Bridge Contract

  • Front-end Toolkit for seamless transfers

  • Ark runs CW-based bridges on Injective, Juno, Neutron, Osmosis, Stargaze, Terra; contributed to cw-ics721/cw-nfts.

Funding Request

  • Total: $90,000 USDC (shown in the spend proposal details as 90,000,000,000 IBC-wrapped uusdc).

  • Breakdown: Development: $90,000 (100%, includes $20k buffer e.g. due to possible breaking changes in CosmosEVM or other unforeseen issues).

  • Audits Excluded: $50,000 removed to reduce costs; audits will be deferred until pilot success.

  • Operations Excluded: $60,000 removed; initial operations will be self-funded by Ark Protocol.

  • Release: Three tranches upon dev start, testnet deployment, and mainnet launch.

  • MVP: Targeted for Q3/Q4 2025, pending final CosmosEVM release.

Treasury and Oversight

Funds will be sent to and managed by Ark’s Oversight DAO here: DAO DAO

Ark Oversight DAO memebers with 3-signer threshold for approvals:

  • Sistla (OmniFlix): cosmos1nqchg6qytz6mvq85r6adsuaghfwnczex9hs02m

  • Zerk (Mad Scientists): cosmos1pwha5a3hr55wmmur2d4fm0p8rf7q62wn2rvzw8

  • Johnny Wyles (Osmosis): cosmos1dplx2zw3mjk5lam6fnv5q2yxldcshs3wh2rhh9

  • David Goose (Osmosis): cosmos1ky9hyqhdxygkkyvjcdd76qceq7t9syy488rsjm

  • Tatsen (Ark): cosmos1trghmhd4d9qcf9d0lsyesxzj3aasqg9slykml5

  • Mr T (Ark): cosmos1vtpt9kwjywm3xpake4v8sjmh2uxqq57h499qa5

Voting Optins:

  • YES to push Cosmos’ stack adoption for enterprises.

  • NO seeing no need for businesses exchanging data using bridge and bridging NFTs in general.

  • Abstain: You wish to contribute to the quorum but formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal.

  • No With Veto: your ‘No With Veto’ vote indicates us, Ark, either to be spam, irrelevant to the Cosmos Hub. If the number of ‘No With Veto’ votes is greater than a third of total votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.

:hourglass_not_done: Update (July 19th, 2025) – Prop #1005 is onchain for voting

Vote here: #1005. Bridging Worlds: Empowering Cosmos with an Ethereum NFT Bridge

:hourglass_not_done: Update (July 17th, 2025) – Asteroid Inscriptions Cancellation

Asteroid inscriptions have been cancelled following Delphi Labs shifting focus away from Cosmos, compounded by ongoing delays and the sunsetting of support from AADAO and the Interchain Foundation.

Despite this, the community has already minted 60 000+ inscriptions and counts hundreds of active collectors. Our initial proposal aimed to make these inscriptions cross-chain NFT compatible - and, together with Ark’s forthcoming EVM-based NFT bridge, would enable all existing artwork inscriptions to be bridged or merged onto Ethereum. Once live, Asteroid users could claim their inscriptions on Ethereum Day 1, unlocking immediate liquidity and positioning themselves for potential airdrops or other incentives.

Dedicated Inscriptions Proposal (if there’s community interest)

  • Development – $20 k
    Wrap existing inscriptions into standard NFTs for cross-chain compatibility
  • Audit – $20 k
    Security review of wrapping and bridge integration
  • Maintenance & Migration – $35 k
    Migrate inscriptions to a new home (as initially approved by AADAO)

If you’d like to see a standalone Community Pool proposal for Asteroid inscriptions, let us know in the comments!

:hourglass_not_done: Update (July 16th, 2025)

TL;DR - What’s Changed?

:white_check_mark: Proposal Adjustment

Despite the pause of the Hub’s EVM module, EVM support remains a key priority for the broader Cosmos ecosystem. With Ethereum being the largest NFT ecosystem, building an EVM-compatible ICS-721 bridge still plays a vital role in linking Cosmos with global NFT liquidity and communities.

At the same time, Ark proposes a second initiative: expanding Ark Passport into a full-fledged Web3 Social Layer. This product is already live in beta (passport.arkprotocol.io) and will evolve into an interactive social platform natively tied to Cosmos chains and $ATOM.

:scroll: New Community Pool Proposals

Ark will publish two separate CP proposals:

Proposal 1: EVM-Based NFT Bridge

Category Amount
Development $90k
Operations $60k
Audits $50k
Total $200k

:pushpin: Purpose: Build and operate a Solidity-based ICS721 contract connecting Cosmos Hub to Ethereum.

Proposal 2: Web3 Social Platform - Ark Passport

Category Amount
Development $50k
Operations $0 (covered by Ark)
Audits Excluded for now
Total $50k

:pushpin: Purpose: Support development of Ark Passport as a native, open-source social utility layer on Cosmos.

:receipt: All revenue generated from Passport will be held or swapped into $ATOM to reinforce Hub-centric value accrual.

:tear_off_calendar: Milestones & Oversight

Payments for both proposals will follow a 3-stage milestone plan:

  1. Initial payment: development start
  2. Second payment: testnet deployment
  3. Final payment: mainnet deployment

Funds will be held in a 3/6 multisig and governed by trusted Cosmos contributors:

  • Zerk (Mad Scientists)
  • Sistla (OmniFlix / StreamSwap)
  • David Goose & Johnny Wyles (Osmosis)
  • Tatsen & Mr T (Ark Protocol)

Questions or Feedback?

We welcome any comments from the community and will update the proposals with your input. Our goal is to continue contributing high-impact utilities and public-good infrastructure to the Cosmos Hub.

:hourglass_not_done: Original Post:

Ark Protocol’s mission is to empower $ATOM and Cosmos Hub by providing cross-chain NFT and inscription utilities through our merger with Asteroid Protocol. We aim to connect communities, creators, and builders across Ethereum and Cosmos, fostering a vibrant, interoperable ecosystem.

We seek funding to build and operate an open-source EVM-based ICS721 bridge, provided as a public good, with two proposed implementation options, and to integrate Asteroid’s inscription technology for Cosmos Hub.

Currently, Ark Protocol and DAODAO are key contributors to Cosmos Hub. We believe that the more teams building on the Hub, such as Stargaze and BackBone Labs, the stronger the ecosystem becomes - potentially even attracting platforms like Magic Eden to Cosmos Hub!

Let’s open the floodgates to innovation and collaborate!

The following Cosmos contributors support Ark’s proposal and will serve as Oversight DAO Signers:

  • Zerk (Mad Scientists)
  • Sistla (OmniFlix and StreamSwap)
  • David Goose & Johnny Wyles (Osmosis)
  • Tatsen & Mr T (Ark Protocol)

Requested funds will be converted from $ATOM to USDC, held in a six‐signer multisig (3/6 threshold). Any unspent balance will be returned to the Community Pool.

AADAO has been a steadfast supporter of Ark and will continue its support on cross-chain NFT utilities, subject to the proposal’s approval.

About Ark Protocol

Ark Protocol, now merged with Asteroid Protocol, equips communities, creators, and builders with cross-chain NFT and inscription utilities across Cosmos and beyond.

  • Founders: Lead devs & biz leads with 20+ years’ experience
  • Core Contributions: cw-ics721 (cross-chain bridge) & cw-nfts v19 (dynamic, aka “genetic” NFTs)
  • Bridge deployed on 7 chains so far: Cosmos Hub, Injective, Juno, Neutron, Osmosis, Stargaze, and Terra2
  • Cross-Chain NFT and Inscription Utilities: bridge, launchpad, onchain utility contracts, and our upcoming marketplace
  • Asteroid Inscriptions: A launchpad and marketplace on Cosmos Hub for BTC Ordinals-like inscriptions - immutable, inscribed on-chain transaction data representing fungible or non-fungible tokens, with plans for cross-chain interoperability in the future.
  • Grant Supporters: Stargaze, AADAO, DoraHacks, Neutron & others

Proposal Summary

We seek funding for two options to build and operate an Ethereum ↔ Cosmos Hub NFT bridge using Cosmos Hub’s upcoming EVM module. Budgets are pessimistic estimates; any savings (e.g., cheaper audits) will be refunded.

Category Option A
EVM ICS-721 Bridge		 Option B
EVM ICS-721 Bridge + Inscriptions
Development $90 k $110 k
Operations $60 k $60 k
Audits $50 k $70 k
Inscriptions $0 $40 k
Total $200 k $240 k

EVM Bridge Development

We will deliver audited Solidity contracts (“ICS-721 V2”) and a front-end for seamless NFT transfers between Ethereum and the Hub.

  • Core Contracts: ERC-721-compliant bridge deployed on Ethereum & Cosmos Hub
  • Frontend UI: abstracted mint/transfer interface across chains
  • Buffer: $30 k optional for CosmosEVM compatibility, extending the CosmWasm bridge, unforeseen EVM breaking changes, and other contingencies

Operations & Support

Twelve months of infrastructure, monitoring, and DevOps ensure reliability and community trust.

  • Initial Setup: $10 k for node deployments, relayers & monitoring (Akash or AWS or Google Cloud or mix of those)
  • Ongoing DevOps: up to $5 k/month for operations & infra (max $60 k total)

Audits

Security is paramount; we’ll solicit at least two audit proposals and select one firm to review all new contracts.

  • Budget: Up to $50 k (Option A) or $70 k (Option B)
  • Oversight: Auditor selection by DAO signers
  • Refunds: Any unused audit funds return to the Community Pool

Cross-Chain Inscriptions (Option B)

Building on Asteroid Protocol’s on-chain data layer, we’ll wrap memo-based inscriptions as ERC-721 tokens for true interop.

  • Development: $20 k for inscription-wrapping contracts
  • Audits: $20 k for dedicated security reviews
  • Benefit: Immutable data storage with seamless cross-chain transfers

Why Approve?

Strengthening the Hub’s NFT ecosystem with open-source, community-governed tools benefits everyone.

  • Proven Track Record: 40 000+ NFTs bridged across 7 chains since Oct 2023
  • Public Good: ICS-721 bridge & cross-chain Launchpad boosting liquidity & UX
  • Ecosystem Synergy: Empowers Stargaze, BackBone Labs, Mad Scientists, Architects, and more

Voting Options

  • Yes: Approve funding Ark Protocol to build and operate the EVM bridge ( + inscriptions).
  • No: Reject the request.
  • Abstain: Count toward quorum without expressing support or opposition.
  • NoWithVeto: Flags spam or governance violations; if > ⅓ of votes, proposal fails and deposit is burned.
11 Likes
2

This will be a game changer for all parties. Excellent proposal @ark_team Ark protocol, you have my full support! LFG! :fire:

6 Likes
3

Completely reasonable asks.

BackBone Lab would be happy to support either reasonable option, as ARK has an excellent track record.

@mr-t is a significant asset to any community, and the ARK vision fits perfectly with the broader Cosmos vision of connecting everything.

:pirate_flag::atom_symbol::raised_fist:t2:

4 Likes
4

I support this proposal. The requested amount is absolutely adequate.

1 Like
5

This looks reasonable,considering they’ve already built NFT bridges to 7 different chains. Building an EVM bridge and introducing Inscriptions would bring something new to Cosmos. The requested amount also seems fair for developing something new, especially when compared to SG’s $15 million proposal,this is donut money in comparison. It’s good to finally see teams aiming to build something different in the Cosmos ecosystem …

1 Like
6

Regulator Was Review Sanction on This proposal Good. But I will need To See on How our Community Members actfull To Defend this proposal.

1 Like
7

My experience with the Ark Protocol team has been very positive. They’ve shown exceptional motivation, passion, and creativity, particularly around NFTs and cross-chain tooling. They were the first to step up and carry forward the vision of Asteroid Protocol, which, while small at the time, was an early signal that Cosmos Hub had a unique culture and community emerging. The inscription feature was especially valuable given it launched during a time when smart contracts weren’t yet live on the Hub.

From AADAO’s side, we’re not proposing any new funding. Rather, if the community supports this proposal, we’re prepared to release the remaining $35K from the originally approved $80K grant to support Ark in executing this development.

Best of luck and eager to read the other comments :slight_smile:

6 Likes
8

Thank you for submitting this proposal. While the mission is compelling, I have significant concerns about its current structure, transparency, and projected ROI for Cosmos Hub. To evaluate the true impact of this grant request, I’d ask for the following concrete metrics and business justification:

:1234: Requested Metrics

Please provide verifiable statistics for the following:

  1. Unique addresses that have used your ICS-721 interchain bridge
  2. Total number of NFTs currently bridged cross-chain.
  3. Revenue generated by Ark Protocol to date (if any)
  4. Unique addresses that have interacted with your marketplace
  5. Total transaction volume processed by your marketplace

Without these metrics, it is difficult to justify the grant based on ecosystem impact or traction.

:puzzle_piece: UX Concerns

Frankly, the current UX/UI of Ark Protocol is very poor. It’s unintuitive, buggy, technically confusing—even for experienced users—and not suitable for onboarding new participants into Cosmos.

Suggestion:
Please prioritize hiring a dedicated UI/UX designer and consider developing a simplified “for dummies” interface. If the frontend remains inaccessible, then all underlying tech benefits are nullified at the user level.

:money_with_wings: Incentive Design & Grant Structure

The proposal currently offers no incentive for Ark Protocol to succeed long-term. Funding DevOps ($60k/year) as an ongoing “public good” without adoption-based milestones is problematic.

Suggestions:

  • Introduce milestone-based payouts tied to usage (e.g., number of cross-chain transfers, daily active addresses, etc.)
  • Define a business case for the Hub:
    • Will this generate revenue for the Cosmos Hub?
    • Or is this a user acquisition strategy? If so, what’s the cost per acquired user, and is it competitive?

Frankly, if this proposal costs $200k–$240k and results in onboarding 100–200 users, it might be more effective to directly incentivize users through targeted airdrops—assuming Sybil resistance is in place.

:white_check_mark: TL;DR

  • Provide real usage metrics (addresses, transfers, volume, revenue)
  • Make a business case: Will it generate revenue or users for the Hub?
  • Tie funding to milestones and transparent performance targets
  • Drastically improve the UX to avoid alienating users

Right now, the ask feels out of proportion to the current traction and projected benefit and impact.

Are there even users or NFT projects asking for this, and what is the reason?

2 Likes
9

I’m glad you are asking :smiling_face_with_sunglasses:!

User Metrics

It aint easy retrieving all TX history for bridged NFTs across all 7 chains since we went live in Oct 2023 (actually I dont even know there are even RPC nodes storing all TX data since genesis). So far ~60 collections have been using our bridge. We have recently open our bridge allowing ALL collections being able to transfer. Last metric is outdated, but from Jan - April 2024 in total 8k NFTs have been transferred. Check out the stats and paper I was honored to present to IBC Protocol audience: https://x.com/IBCProtocol/status/1785964964081176675

Ark owns Asteroid’s marketplace for inscriptions but not for NFTs yet. Part of this proposal is wrapping inscriptions as NFTs and extend its marketplace for this. The only revenue we’ve made so far was made though our EAP and AIP (“Passport NFT”) utility-based NFT collections launch. Our last and final collection will be the first PFP collection on Cosmos Hub - coming this month.

Besides this: Ark’s focus is on NFT utilities. NFTs are mainly static and their metadata (traits, PFPs) werent able to change. Our latest contribution to the standard NFT contract (aka cw721 v19, “genetic NFTs”) has changed this - and imho is a game changer. Standard ERC721 doesnt even cover this. The Architects for example has utliized/gamified this through their “Rites” process: https://x.com/Architects_nft/status/1922028850198028351

We plan to create revenue by:

  • setting a small bridge fee
  • service fee for parts of NFT utilities Ark’s going to launch (e.g. wallet submissions for WLs, gamifications on NFT metadata)
  • launchpad and marketplace fees

There are very few metrics for cross-chain NFT revenues like Mad Scientists with a total of $1.9M USD on Stargaze: Stargaze, the community-owned app chain for NFTs.

There are no stats e.g. for pixelLions, Galactic Mining Club, Galactic Punks et. al. and other marketplaces (BackBone Labs, Talis). Nevertheless Mad Scientists made alone almos 2Mio USD in 12 months - wouldnt be bad for $ATOM, right :wink: ?

The EVM-based ICS721 allows the Hub to onboard NFTs from Ethereum. I know this is a HOT take, but like BAYC has a total volume of 1.5M $ETH: Bored Ape Yacht Club 5.889 ETH - Collection | OpenSea

At $ETH’s current price of $2.5k, that’s $3.75B USD! If the Hub just get’s 1/1000 from this one, single collection listed on the Hub. That’d be still a lot. Yeah, I know it’s a hot take from a day dreamer like me :sweat_smile:. After this, we aint far away and we’ll able to bridge to Solana as well - yet another wild hot take :rofl:.

UX Concerns

Agree UX can be improved. Dont agree on transfer UI:

image
image374×479 33.6 KB

Select target chain > enter wallet > transfer and off you go. I might be wrong and asked others for more feedback: https://x.com/MrTsCode/status/1931476750808043838

Also it is challenging to handle RPCs across 7 chains. Hell yes! We are working on this and our site gets a relaunch in a few days!

There is EVEN more we need to address for a better UX. Like relayers and indexers: https://x.com/MrTsCode/status/1931214038714761264

But with very limited funds - that aint easy. And(!!!) I’m NGL: some burdens for these kind of issues/improvements have been “transferred” over to teams like us, DAODAO, BBL and many other, but in my very humble opinion it should be the responsibility of an app chain and its validators (e.g. relayers and indexers).

Frankly, $200k - $240k, and all the work we has done in last 36 months, is nothing compared to the outcome (and other benefits) so far.

Incentive Design & Grant Structure

Disagree here. We will build an open source bridge. Worst case: if Ark fails long-term, it doesnt matter. It is open source. Anyone can deploy and maintain this.

2 Likes
10

You haven’t answered a single metric.

  1. Unique addresses that have used your ICS-721 interchain bridge
  2. Total number of NFTs currently bridged cross-chain.
  3. Revenue generated by Ark Protocol to date (if any)
  4. Unique addresses that have interacted with your marketplace
  5. Total transaction volume processed by your marketplace

You haven’t provided a proper business plan or ROI for the Hub (ROI can be in form of user growth).

You haven’t included any milestones, because the metrics most likely look very unpleasant and setting targets that are reachable would also need to be quite low.

Just stating that BAYC makes 1.5M ETH volume shows me how far from reality this proposal is, if you believe a single BAYC will be transferred to Cosmos (or any other collection for that matter). Bring the official Collab + Statement from BAYC (or any other significant collection) that they will support your bridge and provide some sort of marketing / BD to use your bridge (and most likely needed incentives) and I will start shill posting your prop and write every validator. There is no reason for collections or communities to transfer their NFTs over and fracturize both their liquidity as well as their community. Anyone wanting to be in Cosmos has launched on existing marketplaces, be it Stargaze, Talis, BBL or any other.

Making NFT trading on Cosmos more attractive, or some economy around NFTs, then there could be a demand for a bridge. But without that, the incentives for collections to transfer over is just not there and this proposal just blows out 250k worth of ATOM.

Good that you tackle your UX issues!

2 Likes
11

Answered parts of it. We dont have a marketplace yet. So n/a for 3 to 5. Will try my best on 1 and 2, but gotta wait until Tuesday.

But as I said: Mad Scientists (Osmosis) made $1.9M revenue on Stargaze secondary sales. As u know: the Hub has plans for onboarding one (or even more) marketplace(s).

BAYC is a legitimate example, since this is about bridging NFTs between Ethereum and Cosmos. So any kind metrics on Cosmos isnt enough. If u ask for metrics, than we have to look at Ethereum as well. Like on Magic Eden. And for anyone it’s pretty CLEAR the numbers here are A LOT bigger compared to Cosmos without even looking into it in details.

Again: the bridge is a public good. No one needs to collab with Ark. Any collection can bridge it, permissionless!

One more note on UX: there other UIs from other teams, you can use for transfer. Anyone can utilize our public good bridge.

Maybe @Zerk and others can provide insights on whether the bridge has been beneficial so far :upside_down_face::heart_hands:.

1 Like
12

This is an assumption from ur side. Others like us, disagree. MS has proven it is wrong.

What others miss: it is not all about marketplace!!! It is about utlities, value you provide to the fam! Even if NFTs are bridge ALL over to Ethereum, you attract them with utilities on the Hub and thats why users will bridge back to Cosmos.

MS is a perfect showcase here. Afaik most holders only bridge to SG because of marketplace, but they ALL bridge back to Osmosis because of the utilities @Zerk and his team is providing there!

Imho, only very few do understand why NFT utlities are so important. This is Ark’s focus.

1 Like
13

Enabling bridging of NFTs just for the tech serves no purpose. You need a reason to bridge

2 real use cases for bridging NFTs

  1. Chain obsolescence (Terra Classic, Juno)
  • Rekt Wolf minted on Terra Classic, after collapse we saw marketplaces and communities leave. Rekt Wolf was the 1st collection to migrate to Ethereum, and has since gotten 100 ETH in volume. Numbers aren’t incredible but the community and collection lives on today.
  • Rekt Bulls minted on Juno. Loop marketplace and basic infrastructure stopped working… The collection migrated to Stargaze and got a second life with 140000$ in trading volume.

Having bridgeable NFTs doesn’t mean the community dies with the chain.

  1. Chain dApp integrations (utility)
  • Mad Scientists minted on Osmosis, but the NFTs trade on Stargaze because the UI/UX and volumes are there. With 2 million$ trading volume on Stargaze that amounts for 40K in royalties for SG. We’ve seen over +6K transfers for Mad Scientists from 4k+ users between Osmo and SG.
  • Galactic Mining migrated from Terra to Osmosis to take advantage of DAODAO infrastructure.
  • Lending/borrowing of NFTs on Stargaze’s Atlas, fraction NFTs on Osmosis fractaldotfun

Bridgeable NFTs allow you to take advantage of the latest and greatest NFT specific dApps.

Will folk use the Ethereum/Cosmos NFT bridge?

  • From Cosmos to Ethereum
    Bigger projects could try to tap into the deep liquidity of Magic Eden/OpenSea on ETH and Base. New EVM community that will discover the Cosmos roots.

From Ethereum to Cosmos

  • DAODAO is a very interesting NFT tool that doesn’t exist on EVM. Closest thing is Snapshot which is way less powerful.
  • Smaller artists will want to deploy on Stargaze for better attention, smaller collections could bridge over along as well to take advantage of a more welcoming community.
  • Got some cool NFTfi pieces within the Cosmos that certain NFT collections could tap into.

imo this bridge is worth the experiment.

Zerk, co-founder of Mad Scientists and Rekt Gang

9 Likes
14

I’d love to see this move ahead. Ark took over maintenance of Asteroid and delivered on their promises, so I’m confident in their ability to execute. Seamless interoperability of tokens and NFTs across ALL chains seems like an inevitable outcome. The chains that get there first will remain relevant, while others will likely whither.

2 Likes
15

Thx. This means a lot to us from the Bitcoin Ordinals giga brain and pushing these through inscriptions across Cosmos and possibly other chains like Ethereum in case this prop gets passed. In my very humble opinion anyone should follow you :heart_hands::flexed_biceps:.

https://x.com/redphonecrypto/status/1872771031359766628?t=pTlE5CIdQfSIkYmcobYsng&s=19

16

Im curious how this proposed Ethereum NFT bridge differs from the NFT bridge solution being built (nearing completion) by Union Build & Stargaze?

17

This proposal is specific to the Hub’s EVM and IBC Eureka. Union is a different protocol and not related to this. I had a chat with Union some while ago and the NFT bridge is on-hold since a while - also their focus is rn on other chains and topics:

image
image638×522 77 KB

Union is still on testnet. The chains they are focused atm are:

image
image573×215 27.9 KB

1 Like
18

I strongly support this proposal, especially the revised version that would allow Asteroid users to migrate their pre-existing Asteroid inscriptions to EVM. Asteroid will always have a massive place in my heart (especially all the incredible creators and people it led me to meet). Enabling Asteroid inscriptions to be bridged elsewhere is such a great way to establish an initial community on Ark and it creates a new future where all that Asteroid energy and history can live on.

The one piece missing is CFT-20s. Would recommend one of two approaches:

  1. Encourage everyone to bridge their CFT-20s to Neutron (or risk losing them)
  2. Mint equivalent tokens on EVM and make them claimable there.

I imagine 2 would expand the scope of this proposal a fair amount, so No. 1 might be best… especially since CFT-20s already have AMM support on Neutron via Astroport.

1 Like
19

I’m not against the Ethereum bridge, though I’m not sure we can really talk about energy and community when talking about Asteroid. Went there and honestly it was a dead place. Sometimes there wasn’t a single mint or buy in like 2 weeks. I bought 2 NFTs there and regret it, they are unsellable and money is 100% lost. I saw zero activity, the only people minting I guess were creators minting other creators collection, or even their own collection to simulate activity. I think there is more volume in 1 day on Stargaze that they were in Asteroid in its total lifetime lol

edit : just checked, the last buy (0,4 atom) on Asteroid was July 9 , 8 days ago… and the previous one before was July the 1st. No one is using Asteroid, let’s be honest

20

Yes, that’s correct. It has been down for the last 6 months tbh. There are 2 main reasons:

Reason 1: Delphi Labs originally funded this project last year. Sadly they’ve moved away from Cosmos - it just not their priority.
Reason 2: even though we, Ark, took over operations and legal IPs from Asteroid, discussions with AADAO were delayed and finally closed Asteroid’s remaining grant of $36k USD.

Last year was on a different page, Asteroid had quite a big impact in terms of revenue and inscription numbers.