Convert entire STRD supply to ATOM

Sure, you can look at the composite break downs above. Which define risk. You are ignoring the ability to discharge debt again, and that all projects are reliant on Atom for financing/funding.

If it came down to bankruptcy, or civil damages case; what is the hierarchy of risk? Every counter party is going to seek Atoms to discharge the debt and risk. Not Stride, or any other token. Their ability to discharge the debt and or risk is almost ZERO. There is not even an OTC spread for these assets, there is not one fund willing to buy them as distressed assets. Its is the complete opposite for Atom.

Its time we push on that Canton in Switzerland check in on Ethan and @MyPaoG. There is some odd stuff going on. ICF spending is out of control, and very opaque. Ethan broke many local mandates. There is no reality where man hour cost should be above $150, unless the ICF is funding teams purely based on nepotism, and ability to use the ICF as their personal bank account and war chest. Ethan raised money from a global pool of speculators. The raise was sold on the idea that all capital would go to improve the state of Atom/Cosmos. He failed to follow his promises he sold via marketing to investors.

If you notice. Eth, Matic, ect ect… have foundations called the “Eth foundation”. The ICF is not a real idea, but an abstraction to allow that war chest funded with ICO participants capital to be used for any abstract Modus operandi, that has little to do with the raised capital.

Stride needs to publish their balance sheet
They need to define their liabilities
They need to accept the entire valuation is bullTRASH, because the fair market value of an intangible asset is in question is also BullTRASH. Why? A small bag can dump the price to zero. Blowing up any valuation. Nominal valuations are not real. Are you guys kids?

1 Like

There is not one fund, truste, family office, who would buy Stride over Atom. Right now there is lots of capital buying cryptos via distressed asset clauses. You will never hear of Stride, or any other ‘spoke’ token. The same goes with any sub token under Matic, BNB, Sol. Eth is much more grown up, so you do see such purchases of Uni swap ect.

We can fork stride, and build it for way way way less. Ask yourselves why ICF gate keeps anyone who has 3-5x cheaper man hour cost on their dev labs.

1 Like

Sure it’s technically possible but why would any chain use that derivative when it’s not neutral and why would anyone build on cosmos sdk when the atom community is so toxic that it is trying to sabotage any developer that builds on its stack. Or more importantly trying to sabotage any investor who invests in builders. You have a problem where no VCs want to touch cosmos because it’s toxic. Well it’ll be even worse if you try to sabotage projects that build on it

You can not measure any of this with any empirical efficacy. All the products are down against the dollar and Bitcoin and ATOM. You are creating a cognitive bias that variables A B and C is why 123 did well. Yet, all the products are equally discounted. Not just in the Cosmos, but in every network. Lets not make up fairy tales and pretend any methodology is why 1 is better than 2. This is quick way to dissolve any risk management.

Let slow down. No one wants Comdex, or Pstake, or any of that. The ICF is down stream of an ICO which raised capital for Atom. It is very disingenuous to be 3 to 4 years late to the game, and try and make ATOM as ‘capital’ work for you.

Go raise your own ICO funds. The on chain data, says everyone dumped your projects products for ATOM. Even your own dev team did. It is why you hold ATOM now. You do not hold ATOM because you were in the ICO.

You need to zoom out. If you held positions in Matic, Sol, Ava, Btc. You would come to find out, that everyone uses the word toxic. These are emotions being projected by a crowd of retail speculators who took far too much risk and are bag holding Turd coins, which not even a distressed asset hedge fund would buy. The word “toxic” is an epithet used to stop any real adult discussion. Lets refrain from using it.

Atom has some of the largest industry supporters, who were all in the ICO. People who have been in the game since 2010. There is plenty of capital syndicates scanning the ecosystems under distressed asset clauses/fund thesis who want Atoms. I have never heard of anyone wanting a sub token, unless its a cathedral on ETH like UNI, or CurveFi

You think it’s an accident, all the big guys forked tendermint to express their power via Thor chain or BNB? Again the real money defines risk composites, and understands “toxic” is an epithet used by over exposed retail and devs who seek liqudity. If you were to really invest in your idea of “toxic” you would hold zero Bitcoin or Eth. Bitcoin Maxi are toxic, while Bitcoin out performs even U.S. ‘risk free’ debt.

Eth is toxic, the DAO insiders are toxic, we are Eth classic. Give me a break.

twitter. com/ zmanian /status / 1711374585118048679

Atom is an overvalued asset though. Try liquidating $100m of atom and price would cut in half. Why would I want that asset when the upside is capped?

Atom has better depth, then firms on the SPX, and even way better depth than most firms outside of US equity market. Cenovus owns hard industrial assets, and can’t even meet the depth of Atom. Before you GRIFT, get experience in the wider market so you can actually make clear juxtapositions which are not held hostage to your turd coin bias.

Do you understand Hierarchy of risk? Of did you really think everything was equal?

You know with out a doubt, every team request ATOM to finance their projects, and has to dump into ATOMS to get closer to dollars. It is not even debatable,(trying to debate this, just proves how much more people are going to loose) there is an entire cycle of empirical on chain data that shows this, and endless paper trail of grants, and any sleuthing of dev teams show they dumped their native turd coins for Atoms. It is clear where the capital moves to.

Before you bag hold your cognitive bias to zero, perhaps build heat maps of on chain data for yourself.


I’d rather hold a small portion of portfolio in a coin that has risk to go to zero but upside of 20-30x then an asset that has risk of cutting in half but upside of 2-3x

If this goes through, I will absolutely dump the atom and put it in a more attractive option such as BTC or eth


Sure, but retail is not moving the market. Its a nice sales pitch but is not why 14 trillion in stable coins were settled across various networks.

You want to gambol, and see higher opportunity in the gamobl. Thats fantastic. Its not 2013 any more. A distressed asset hedge fund is not looking for a 30x. 2x is fantastic when 10yr note is > than SPX yield.

You simply admitted, your opportunity cost horizon has bias for extreme risk.

Ironically my appetite to invest in atom or cosmos based projects go down from this. VCs already avoid it, I would probably be inclined to avoid it as well.

1 Like

Venture capital avoids turd coins, as do family offices, trust, and hedge funds. You have no empirical data here. Your only opportunity cost is hyper driven speculation of a new coin.

Your not in asset management. Its clear. You are just retail. Venture capital also socializes the losses on people like you. Just look at the on chain data, you will notice VC and devs dumped for what? ATOM

And you were? The lender of last resort in the LP pool. Thanks for playing.

Why should I accept an asset thats going to immediately cut in half upon issuance? I want US Dollars. I dont want atom. Atom is not money - just as Bucky said.

converting stride to atom benefits the stride devs by giving them a founder’s allocation at the expense of everyone else holding ATOM that gets diluted.

validators get to convert an illiquid shitcoin into liquid atom at the expense of ATOM holders.

stride and atom validators share the same 66% VP on both chains, merging would increase centralization among top validators

Converting stride to atom results in the exact same thing we have now except ATOM holders get diluted and ATOM is more centralized.

why would anyone buy ATOM when “aligned” devs can hatch a scam over drinks at cosmoverse that might get your investment significantly diluted by validators using other peoples votes to steal your money?


Hello everyone!

This is my first time contributing to the CosmosHub Forum. By way of a minor introduction, my name is Joseph, a lawyer by profession currently working as an advisor to projects within the digital asset industry - I am also a core contributor at dYdX, a part of the team over at the dYdX Operations SubDAO and part of the TraderJoe Governance Council.

I shall post my thoughts on the proposal above hereunder:

  1. Decentralisation

Decentralisation is a wide spectrum and this term should not be used that liberally as it could be misleading or otherwise could be misconstrued. Decentralisation could be broken down into further sub-sets (Economic Decentralisation, Legal Decentralisation and Technical Decentralisation).

When the team states that the conversion of STRD to ATOM will “greatly increase the decentralization of the Stride protocol”, what facet of decentralization are they actually referring to? In my personal opinion, the conversion of STRD-ATOM will merely change the governance parameters around the Protocol by introducing a new number of governance participants (i.e. ATOM holders), to the equation and giving them a say in the Protocol’s direction. This action in and of itself does not make the Protocol ‘as decentralised as possible’ as there are a lot of actions that need to be taken for a protocol to be ‘as decentralised as possible’ (such as reducing influence & control by the founding team, taking active action to decentralise the Frontend, decentralising software development by incentivising further teams to develop on or with the product, ensuring equitable reward disbursement, making sure the corporate structure does not retain undue control over the Protocol etc.)

2. Current stage of the Protocol

My personal opinion is that the Protocol still has a lot of room for growth as a stand-alone and ring-fenced project (ring-fenced from being governed by ATOM holders). As per DeFi Llama, the Protocol has a mere 35M of TVL and, albeit this being a fantastic achievement from a Cosmos perspective, the team should always meaasure their success by comparing to other Chains and the similar/identical products that exist on other Chains. Ex. Lido Finance has 14.2 Billion in TVL. This is not to say that the 35 Mil achieved is sub-par or ‘nothing’, but this should serve as a motivator to the team that their product has gained traction, is gaining traction, and will continue to do so without this merger.

3. Commercial considerations

As per (2) above, the product is still in a very nascent stage of its lifecycle. Liquid Staking is still a very novel primitive and I expect a lot of innovation re. LST products being shipped in the next couple of months (Do not ask me how I know…). As opposed to proceeding with this token swap and risking that the protocol’s holders look back at this in a year or two and see that they were severely undercut (as I do see this Protocol continuing to grow in the coming years), I would suggest that the team works with the community to create a streamlined set of objectives that it wants to achieve by virtue of Stride.

As opposed to this token swap, I would thus propose working on a roadmap to have a streamlined vision shared among all holders and community members re. what is to be expected from Stride in the coming years (even if this is just solely R&D, or launching the protocol/enabling cross-compatibility on other chains.

All in all, I do not think that this proposal would change a lot aside from potentially increasing the team’s runway for a couple of months. Were this to go through, I think the community would look back on this in a year and deem the decision to have been shortsighted.


As I posted on X (@immutablelawyer), the dilemma here is the following:

i) Be the first to spearhead a new wave of CosmosHub ‘owned’ applications; and

ii) (i) occurs and risk jeopardizing the chances of going beyond Cosmos.

The product has found market-fit on Cosmos and will find market-fit elsewhere as demand for LST alternatives is there. I am confident the team will continue to ship without this merger as I do not think it provides any substantial value-add in the mid-longer term (from a decentralisation or commercial perspective).

Well done to the team for enabling this productive discussion!

Kind regards,


Starting with the risks of this proposal outweigh the benefits by far in my opinion I will write some of my thoughts on this:

  • Stride team did great work, especially compared to competitors, not least I guess they have a significant share of STRD tokens as payment/benefit. Nothing to say against it, but the assumption that motivation remains constant with change of “skin in the game” is at least questionable. Assert that before this transaction, of course, one would anyway.
  • The investment for the hub is difficult to evaluate: Where does the revenue of 700k (proof?) come from, the spread to classic staked atom is low, is part of the earnings for instance from a pool of atom/stAtom where the unstaking period, the users have to wait without revenue brings the revenue for stride? How do the earnings change with any potential change in Atom tokenomics?! Transparency is needed here to reasonably value the hubs’ investment with DCF.
  • How many Strd tokens belong to the team and is this after an appropriate valuation not a too attractive exit possibility, which could reduce motivation of further mainentance.
  • Mentioned by many others, I also see a monopolization of the LS market in Cosmos negatively. What would be the market opportunities of other competitors after this step?
  • I heard from Sunny that a LS derivative would be 2 weeks work, but he decided against it for political reasons. Even if this is not an adequate description for the excellent work done by the Stride team, the question remains to what extent an own investment in development would not be the more favorable option for the hub compared to this investment at a high Stride price.
    Either way, there are many arguments that both Strd and Hub Holder could consider rather negative for themselves and thus spread even more dissatisfaction in the community.
    I’m both Atom and Stride Holder, both to a considerable extent, and the decisive advantage of this proposal is not clear to me; I consider the argument with better decentralization to be pretextual and not very relevant especially compared to the risks, but I am open to hear more convincing arguments, of course.
1 Like

This is a very bad idea. I don’t know why stride devs want exit liquidity so fast and so wild. I haven’t seen a positive comment since the start of this discussion. You have a good chain with the ability to extract value on many chains. Stride devs look like they want to hand over their golden egg-laying chicken for nothing and that is kinda suspicious.
Also I think qATOM and stkATOM should have a chance to compete and with Stride bought by Cosmos Hub they won’t have a chance to survive.
A huge no from me. I hope stride devs stop pushing this nonsense idea and continue building with keeping their skin in the game.


Atom mus be neutral, and let the dapps to compete, a takeover is a horrible form for ATOM to accrue value, and STRD isn’t the best LS solution out there, it can become the best, but needs probe itself in the open, not as a feature of the hub, all consumer chains will contribute to the hub if they have success and ATOM must be imparcial and not pretend merge with every successfull dapp, is just insane.

1 Like

Mostly I agree with you, first of all, I don’t think there is any fit model to evaluate the crypto projects let alone the Stride which is mostly token-locked. The method I am using to evaluate has its own downside.

I have not said anywhere what should be the price of STRD, I have evaluated it using the model I see better than the others. Stride community shouldn’t sell their token for less it makes no sense, also it does not make any sense for Hub either to buy a project above the inflation. The complexity level is very high.