Convert entire STRD supply to ATOM

Hub Proposals
146

There are many models to evaluate companies/ projects and most of them use the past performance of the company rather than projections. While we cannot deny the upside potential of Stride or the Hub’s.

A few reasons why MC is not a suitable evaluation model for Stride;

Price Manipulation: Low-liquidity cryptocurrencies can be easily manipulated by a small number of large trades. This can result in inflated or deflated market cap figures that don’t accurately reflect the true value or potential of the project.

Circulating vs. Total Supply: Market cap is typically calculated using the total supply of tokens, but many tokens may be locked up or held by the project team. The circulating supply, which is what’s actively traded, is often significantly smaller. Market cap can give a misleading impression of a project’s scale.

Market Sentiment: Cryptocurrency markets can be highly speculative and sentiment-driven. A sudden surge in interest or hype can inflate market cap, while negative news can lead to rapid declines, as we are seeing currently for STRD.

Token Distribution: Uneven token distribution, where a small number of holders own the majority of tokens, can lead to price manipulation and centralization concerns. Market cap doesn’t reveal these issues.

1 Like
147

You are commenting like Hub is eager to buy STRD, while this is not the case and quite the opposite. We are here to have a healthy discussion so that both communities discuss and find a possible solution.

I don’t know where you are fetching these numbers and what even you are talking about.

148

For Cosmos Hub you have to think differently, it has many things which Stride does not have.

  • Tens of Millions of liquidity (Fact)
  • Availability to exchange on hundreds of DEXs and CEXs (Fact)
  • Littelry no lock period on the bonding token after LSM (Fact)
  • Having way more upside potential than STRD (opinion)

Based on these facts and opinions do you think we can evaluate these projects differently? I think so.

2 Likes
149

Any Premium should be based on the price at announcement date. No one wants to hold an asset that might get 20% premium but will fall 50% because of all the sudden uncertainty around it from this.

150

if Hub dosnt want to merge Stride - he has to be informed about it. According to price Stride 0,01 $ - it may possible in some time.
As for the disscussion - I see community doesn’t want to merge.
Merge wants core team - so community of Stride is ''hostage" of core team.

According Stride price manipulation it can be huge.

1 Like
151

No no and one more time no. We invested our funds in Stride. We believe in team projects and high results. If we needed the Atom token, we would buy it.
The conversion of Stride tokens to Atom is very questionable and most likely not beneficial for token holders. The community will feel cheated if this proposal is accepted.

2 Likes
153

This is very bad argument. It is like saying every fiat but the dollar is not currency or money.

You should learn how markets work, and maybe you would have more bitcoin, all your charts are dead against BTC, and the dollar is very volatile against bitcoin in long term time cycles.

Are you trying to make a claim that anything that trades high beta, or as a leveraged dollar short is not fiat?

Just because final debt, is denominated in dollars, to reduce counter party risk does not mean there are not other species of money. Of course, when the dollar pumps and rates rise all emerging market currencies dump against the dollar, as the majority of global debt is denominated in dollars.

The reality is, every team needs ATOM to discharge debt and get closer to dollars. Just like in south east asia, you need to dump local native soft money for JPY to get access to dollars to hedge your account balances.

1 Like
154

Stride is worth maybe 500k. Already in discussions to fork it at less then 42 USD per man hour. Will the Gate keepers allow such competitive dev labs? Prob not.

1 Like
155

I truly expected a better argument than this. Anything that is not dollars is not a species of money.

Yet the dollar is totally collapsed against btc when you cycle in long duration volatility.

Every firm world wide, has to go through many gate keepers to discharge their debt and access dollars.

Japan, Korea, China. You name it! Japans entire monetary system acts a facilitator for firms to discharge debt via JPY and then into Dollars. I think you are upset, that you hedged wrong. The on chain data is very clear, everyone dumped for Atoms. Why? 1. They are long Atom 2. They needed Atom to discharge debt and get access to dollars.

They are both very bullish propositions, and is exactly what you want to see in a network state which is rising to surpass emerging markets that exist even in Africa.

What we see in this thread is scary. We see people bag holding turd coins, and doing everything they can to ignore empirical on chain data. Do they deny the science? What could cause someone to want an asset, that no one is buying? Interesting and fascinating behavior of the proletariat indeed.

1 Like
157

if Stride worth 500k may be commynity and I buy it all ?? ))
who is ready to sell?
You are just kidding …
If you have any documentation to prove - you are wellcom

158

Stride will be .10$ soon

1 Like
159

Over the past few days, I have been reading over this thread and the various comments. This single thread encouraged me to create an account. Full disclosure, at the time of this writing, I am an ATOM holder and hold very little STRD (staking rewards). I want to come at this discussion from both sides. Even though I may have skin in the game on a particular side, I would like to remain objective.

From the side of the STRD holders…
Competition produces better products. With this prospective proposal, competition wouldn’t die, but I have a sense that newcomers to the Cosmos ecosystem would view The Hub’s liquid staking as the de facto liquid staking. Every other app chain that provides liquid staking services would appear as a secondary offering. There is also the financial aspect of such a transition. The financials would be the main details that would need to be ironed out, but the STRD holders have been vocal they do not like the idea. We are all in this ecosystem together and we should not alienate a subset of that ecosystem. This is not to say this prospective proposal should be shut down completely, but clearly, there would be a large hill to climb to convince STRD holders this would be in their interest. I respect their stance and could see myself sharing their stance if I were a large holder of STRD.

From the side of the ATOM holders…
I know we dearly want The Hub to play a bigger role with additional use cases to thrive as a digital asset, but is this the way? I have not searched the forums, so the question I am about to pose could be an ongoing topic on another thread (and by this point, a beaten dead horse). The question we should all be asking (STRD holders, ATOM holders, all other ecosystem participants), what role does The Hub play in the ecosystem amongst the other app chains?

My thoughts…
I have heard many of times that The Hub isn’t just this thing that app chains plug into, but it is its own sovereign chain (own token, produces blocks, etc).If this is the case, why does The Hub not have dapps building directly on the chain AND/OR have any app chains that use ATOM as their gas token and their own token for governance?

Knowledge gap on my part, but does The Hub even have smart contracts to make this a possibility? If not, why not?

I have also heard on many occasions that The Hub’s chain could fail and the rest of the app chains would be perfectly fine, I believe it. With my current understanding, The Hub doesn’t play a critical role in an app chain’s day-to-day operations (e.g the fall of LUNA/UST didn’t bring down The Hub). Services like ICS do play a role in other app chains, but that isn’t a service all app chains utilize. ICS chains I could see being in trouble if The Hub does fail, but that is another discussion for another time. I am not saying The Hub SHOULD play a role in every app chain, it is just an observation.

What is the role of The Hub…?

  1. Is The Cosmos Hub this overarching chain that supports all other app chains in the ecosystem; deriving its value over time due to the success of the other app chains via its ability to provide ecosystem services and liquidity while remaining neutral?

AND/OR

  1. Can we allow app chains to have their own chain (i.e. producing their own blocks and own history separate of The Cosmos Hub), but utilize ATOM for their gas and/or governance?

AND/OR

  1. Can we allow dapps to build atop The Cosmos Hub (i.e. JUNO, EVMOS, ETH model) and use The Hub’s block space and ATOM for their purposes?

1, 2, and 3 are not mutually exclusive. However, it does sound like ecosystem participants disagree on the role of The Cosmos Hub. I believe once we determine its role as a collective, the discussion we are having here would be more fruitful.

By the way, it is not my intention to derail this thread.

1 Like
160

It is to late, everyone here read the published crypto culture of critique, and why venture capital just can not win in these markets. Especially if we have well educated discussion on why giving such cheap tokens to so many is bad capital formation, especially when they expect an asset with less risk composite to provide the back end of liquidity.

For this reason SharkTank says No Thanks! The big question, is what will the community do.

161
1 Like
162

I completely agree with the idea of STRD turning into ATOM, ATOM taking over the governance of Stride and the Stride team working on the Cosmos Hub going forward. However, I don’t agree on the price this is happening at.

Valuations are made over 10 years and the current $700K annual revenue means valuation is at most $7 million for total Stride market cap. This assumes revenue remains at $700K for 10 years. As we saw in the last 2 years, that could be too bullish of a projection! The current FDV of Stride at $70 million is a total rip off and completely unacceptable. I understand the concerns of STRD investors but the job of ATOM investors is not to bail Stride out, but to accrue value to ATOM. Value accrual for ATOM happens if Stride is acquired for less than $7 million total market cap. Sorry.

With all of that said, the best chance for Stride investors to return their money is if Stride is part of the Cosmos Hub according to the plan outlined above. Stride on its own will go to $7 million I outlined even while ATOM rallies because these are fundamentally different tokens with different value propositions. The crypto market still awards great premiums to projects and the Stride premium is totally absurd at about 10x 10-year revenues.

I view any price for Stride above $10 million as a total rip off for ATOM token holders.

1 Like
163

This post isn’t directed towards you specifically, but anyone who supports the idea of acquiring app-chains and bringing them under the fold of The Cosmos Hub.

I believe someone either said it in the thread earlier or alluded to it, but merging app-chains into The Cosmos Hub is a slippery slope - I fully agree.

Reason 1: Conflicts of Interest
The Cosmos Hub cannot have its cake and eat it too. We either serve the app-chains or we compete with the app-chains. There was a point in time in The Cosmos Hub’s history where you could have made the argument that such app-chains as OSMO and STRD shouldn’t exist. Those app-chain services could have been provided on The Cosmos Hub using ATOM. In my opinion, that ship had gone and sailed - we have chosen to serve the app-chains (neutrality).

Reason 2: Negative Cosmos Hub Impacts
Alternate universe example:
The Cosmos Hub would like to acquire/merge the Terra ecosystem and convert LUNA into ATOM. We believe the idea of burning UST for ATOM is the best thing since sliced bread. It would make Cosmos the first ecosystem to be able to mint and control its own stablecoin.

Now, let’s imagine the LUNA/UST collapse didn’t occur during the 2020 halving cycle nor the 2024 halving cycle, but the 2028 halving cycle. The Cosmos Hub would probably be much larger and more intertwined into other app-chains (e.g. ICS). As you know, the rest is history.

We saw the impact of the collapse of Terra back in 2022. Now imagine that collapse happens in 2030. More defi app-chains would be involved AND it occurs on the central liquidity chain of the ecosystem. All in the name for giving ATOM more value…

Reason 3: Degraded Cosmos Hub Experience
Who is to say the app-chains The Cosmos Hub votes to acquire/merge won’t be duds? Sure, we could always rewrite some code and make things better. Though, I would expect the app-chain central to the ecosystem (The Cosmos Hub) to have the best experience in any category in comparison to other ecosystem app-chains (i.e. gamefi, defi, socialfi, etc) You could then end up with 1-3 other app-chains that perform a service better than the central app-chain. This would reflect poorly on The Cosmos Hub and be a waste of funds as the merger didn’t end favorably.

If the concern is the technology, I would say The Cosmos Hub and its team has done a remarkable job in its implementation thus far.

If the concern is the investment value, it has held up rather well since its 2019 launch. When ATOM bleeds against USD, the chart is nothing but positive. When ATOM bleeds against BTC, it is doing a hell of a lot better than some other projects.

I believe the way forward is by some means extracting value from the app-chains - directly acquiring app-chains has too many risks.

164

Thank you for the post. A couple of retorts:

  1. I view the Cosmos Hub as an infrastructure provider for app chains. I think this is also the Port City vision of Ethan. We want to preserve the technical resiliency of the Cosmos Hub and its ability to provide security while simultaneously expanding the offerings of core services. Instead of the Cosmos Hub coding new infrastructure layer products which can turn out to be a dud or have unexpected technical deficiencies in production, those products should start off as separate chains. The new products are run as separate chains for a few years during which they are tested for technical resiliency and - very important - good product market fit. Many chains start off with a vision that there is demand for some service and in reality turns out that there isn’t. But a few of these products succeed - and they do provide “infrastructure layer” service so then they are good fit to be acquired by the Cosmos Hub (ie burn all their tokens for ATOM at some price that makes sense). Liquid staking and Stride are a perfect example for this venture chain strategy. When people were discussing liquid staking, it was hard to envision for someone like me how it would work in practice. But now you have Stride, I can go try the product use it and understand the offering. BTW, Stride is not the only liquid staking provider. There are 3 others. Now, the Cosmos Hub can pick from these 3 implementation and select the best product around which to standardize the user experience. This is a process that is very common in Silicon Valley. 10 different teams build maps products, then Google swoops in and picks the best implementation of a map, integrates the team and voilà all of Google’s users now have a Google Maps product. I have several friends whose teams were acquired by Google after coming up on their own with products that were then integrated into Google - Google Photos, Street View, Shopping. These were products that served Google’s vision for what the company should offer and they were acquired. Similarly, products that fit Cosmos Hub vision should be acquired eventually in order to consolidate the user experience and provide a default option. I don’t think the Cosmos Hub should be involved in app chain strategies like gamefi or socialfi. For example, if there is some appchain that facilities movie ticket sales - that obviously is an app chain and should never be acquired by Cosmos Hub. But liquid staking - allowing staked tokens to become liquid and traded and having a decentralized chain provide the custody - is right up Cosmos Hub’s alley as an infrastructure provider. The LST product will be used by all other app chains to create stOSMO, stJUNO, or whatever their token is
  2. There is still a separate chain on which the functionality is provided. Cosmos Hub acquiring Stride doesn’t mean that the Stride chain disappears. It is still there, it is still a separate blockspace and if it fails, it doesn’t affect the core functioning of Cosmos Hub. The only thing that changes on this chain is that it needs to use ATOM for transaction and its validators are the same as the Cosmos Hub validators. But it still a separate chain and isolated execution space. A good analogy for that is your windows computer. You have the operating system, but every app inside it is run inside a separate “process”. And thus if a “process” fails and they do all the time, the failure is isolate that that malfunctioning process. The operating system still runs and the other apps still run. At least that is how I understand the technology to work. In this situation Cosmos Hub functionality is similar to Polkadot. The app chains (AEZ consumer chain like Stride) can fail while the relay chain (ie Cosmos Hub) continues to provide its core functionality of security.
  3. I think the app-chains that are rolled into ATOM have to have demonstrated good product-market fit and good technology that has been tested for a while. In other words, there has been significant usage at scale for 6 or more months. The community consider the chain to be the standard for the service provide. For example, in liquid staking there are 3 providers on Cosmos, but Stride has emerged as the dominant market leader. 80% of the liquid staking is done there. It has been around for a couple of years. It is generating substantial revenues. It provides infrastructure layer service. That is a good chain to roll up into Cosmos Hub.

The only other one I can think of at this point is Osmosis. That is a high quality product that can be rolled into the Cosmos Hub and the user experience standardized around it. I view token exchanges as core blockchain offering - and particularly IBC token to IBC token exchange should be standardized around the hub. Prices and spreads are much better and consumer friendly when the liquidity pools are consolidated. In other words, if the Cosmos Hub exchange is holding, let’s say, all $100 million of liquidity for USDC-ATOM token that is a much better financial and tech experience for users than $10 million of liquidity among 10 different exchanges. People will pay less per transaction and slippage is smaller. In the exchange business there are HUGE economies of scale (that is why Schwab bought out TD Ameritrade which bought out Ameritrade, etc) and for that reason I think spot IBC-to-IBC token exchange should be standardized around the Cosmos Hub. However, something like Levana or DYDX - which are perps bucket shops - I don’t think the Cosmos Hub should be involved in that. Osmosis - Yes, Levana, DYDX - Hard NO.

Investment value is certainly a concern. It shouldn’t be the only concern, but it can’t be neglected altogether. Because if ATOM doesn’t work as an investment, you will see investment into the Cosmos technology dry up. At this point some VC or rich guy gave money to the ICF and Tendermint Inc expecting returns. Right now there is returns for them with ATOM. But if ATOM goes to zero, these returns will disappear. If these returns disappear, guess what - I doubt somebody else would give ICF and Tendermint money again to do their thing. If people want to have a hobby, have a hobby. Have a day job and code on the side. But if you want a salary, you have to be a professional and that means CREATING VALUE - measurable value. ie money needs to be coming in to pay your salary.

ATOM is holding up well this bear market because investors still believe the ATOM token can be rescued as an investment - its tokenomics can be fixed and top quality infrastructure layer offerings can be added to the Hub. If this belief disappears, ATOM’s price will be a lot closer to zero than to $10. You might want to take a look at what happened to Cardano once investors cooled off on the prospects of its tech a couple of years ago.

1 Like
165

I do agree on your views of infrastructure fit. I believe things like LS and a DEX for the ecosystem should be handled by The Cosmos Hub. I have always thought this and always wondered why this wasn’t done by design before OSMO and STRD decided they needed their own tokens.

I’d just like to caution that at the time (2021/2022), many probably would have seen LUNA/UST as a great fit. Why shouldn’t The Cosmos Hub be able to issue a stablecoin that is the de facto stablecoin of the ecosystem? It outpaced ATOM in market cap and had a good duration of time of showing great performance. If the financials were right, there would have been nothing stopping ATOM holders for voting LUNA/UST > ATOM/UST thinking it was a great idea. UST would have been scattered all about the entire ecosystem and various app-chains may not have recovered. We only now know that LUNA/UST was a bad system after the fact.

If the idea is to stop at infrastructure level acquisitions, I could see it being contentious, but making sense in the long run.

I just don’t see how this wouldn’t leave a bad taste in competitors mouths that aren’t deemed “the chosen ones” when The Cosmos Hub decides to scoop up app-chains in the future. Telling the competition we are leaving you to die a slow death without telling them you are leaving them to die a slow death by then becoming their direct competition. Ouch.

166

Since you made me think of it from what you said in your post about the chains still being separate, but both utilizing ATOM, why do app-chains continually insist on having their own token? Governance? If more app-chains used ATOM, wouldn’t that solve the ATOM utility/use-case dilemma?

167

I don’t see stablecoin as a fit for Cosmos Hub. It is not Cosmos Hub job to build stablecoins. Stablecoin is an app. US dollar is liability of the United States. The US or some company in the US should create an app chain that does that IF they think this is appropriate for them. We see them doing that now with Noble. Or more like Noble is a chain by a centralized entity that will be creating multiple stablecoins. At the implementation level this look like creating different legal entities in different countries and hooking up those entities to the banking system and then following all regulations. Cosmos Hub can secure Noble but that’s about it. It is absolutely insane for anyone to think that Cosmos Hub will be doing banking regulatory work in multiple countries in order to support stablecoins.

Moreover, algorithmic stablecoin like UST is an absolute NO-NO, because that is essentially counterfeiting US dollars and thus subject to prosecution by the US. Even if Terra was using more legitimate backing like Bitcoin for the coin, it would still run afoul of a number of banking laws because taking deposits in USD on one hand and managing a portfolio of assets on the other hand is the very definition of a bank. So Terra had to register as a bank. As the laws stand now, you can’t legally have a decentralized US dollar in any form. You always need a centralized legal entity that connects you to the US banking system.

We saw how LUNA played out. I understand a lot of people out there don’t quite understand finance and banking as well as I do. I stayed out of the LUNA fiasco the entire way all throughout 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, etc. and I was very much against any LUNA/Cosmos Hub convergence ideas back then as well.

1 Like