ATOM is expensive, you are paying rent for security and some business models want/require cheaper transactions costs than that which means they running their own infrastructure (nodes). Which means their own token. Akash is one such example. I don’t see a circumstance where it makes sense for ATOM to be used instead of AKT. It would make the protocol more expensive to use which could be a headwind to adoption. We already have Ethereum that is really expensive for apps to use. And as we see many still use it. In some situations it makes sense to pay higher transaction costs in exchange for security and in others it doesn’t.
1 Like
Una mas: The Cosmos Hub was working on a DEX called GravityDEX that flopped. Osmosis ate its lunch and was first to market on many features. This is why I don’t want the Cosmos Hub team to be working on technologies they don’t have expertise about. For building a DEX you need to know trading technology, not necessarily distributed computing or making SDKs which is what the Cosmos Hub team knows about. As such it is better for 2 or 3 dexes to be launched with their own chains and then let the market determine which is the winner. The Cosmos Hub really shouldn’t be picking winners and losers at inception, simply because it doesn’t have the expertise. It could fund certain projects that are inside a strategically important sector/direction but then it should let the teams battle it out in the marketplace.
The Cosmos Hub doesn’t owe anybody survival, it needs to work on its own survival and 90% of the projects it funds will end up failing. That is how it is in the VC industry. This is all very experimental technology, high rate of failure is to be expected. Osmosis is an example of a project that beat the Cosmos Hub chosen one - Gravity DEX. App chain devs will beat the core devs because they have the edge of app specific expertise. Cosmos Hub later adopting the market winner is not the same as the Cosmos Hub competing against app devs. It was app devs against each other and then the best one gets anointed. It’s been like that since time immemorial. The Pope doesn’t make kings out of battle losers, you know. Think of the Cosmos Hub as the Pope. Whoever makes it to Rome with his army intact gets the Papal blessing to become king 
1 Like
I have derailed this thread enough, so I will keep my responses short and try to tie my post back in to the original discussion.
-
I like your position of a stablecoin not being fit for The Cosmos Hub. Back in those years of 2021/2022, I don’t believe there would have been any stopping a proposal and a popular vote from going through. I could be wrong here and maybe our voting system is robust enough to handle such a situation.
-
Your stance of The Cosmos Hub’s role makes sense. The way you think about it is very similar to the VC world (due diligence - spray and pray). However, we are a single entity with finite resources (The Cosmos Hub), while there are many VCs (as a collective - effectively, infinite resources). The strategy in which an acquisition happens (the original topic of this thread) is key - the who, what, when, why and how.
While GRAV and OSMO is a good example, the superior technology was much more clear cut. If STRD had a competitor that was neck and neck - I could see there being talks of an acquisition where it is not so clear cut. With your stance, it may not be that The Cosmos Hub owes any one app-chain’s survival - but optics matter. It isn’t a good look, and by extension, setting precedence, that new projects or even projects that decide to migrate over to the Cosmos ecosystem have this black cloud over their projects. I wouldn’t want to stifle the growth nor innovation of the Cosmos ecosystem due to such a practice. -
Knowledge gap…but I believe I maybe just looking at it from the user side of a chain and not the provider side of the chain. It is my understanding that Ethereum struggles with fees due to limited block space to place transactions. If other app-chains still require their own chain, but use the ATOM token - isn’t that just a limitation of the number of validators and or hardware?
My concerns of your stance in #2 are not saying you are wrong, just my observation based on the current direction of The Cosmos Hub. This takes me back to my first post of this thread, I asked the question, what is the role of The Cosmos Hub?
Reading through the various post of this thread, it sounds like we need to have a vote on that so we know how to proceed with such discussions - as in this thread.
It is clear throughout this thread, no one agrees on the role of The Cosmos Hub.
Wonderful synopsis of understanding and history.
Stride is a really successful platform dedicated to the cosmos ecosystem, but since it is a chain, I do not find conversion appropriate. It would be a negative situation if the Cosmos ecosystem’s number 1 liquidity staking platform does not have a token.
STRD token is doing very well right now. I think disrupting this order suddenly will harm the project.
However, the transition to a new token system, as proposed here by Stride, raises concerns. This proposal would essentially strip existing Stride token holders of their rights and the tokens they had purchased and staked in anticipation of participating in governance (among other benefits).
Even though the validators are the same for both chains, the underlying belief systems are different.
The proposed distribution of funds not only threatens market stability, but also tests public trust. The lack of incentives in the form of tokens will lead to a severe lack of user engagement.
ATOM must be fully liquid so that Stride members wishing to opt out can sell their ATOM.
No one who currently owns STRD should exchange a fully unlocked STRD for another token that is subject to a transition perio
Bro this has been settled for months. It’s not happening.
1 Like
Although I do understand the advantages in terms of decentralization and security, I do not think this is a good trade off for the following reasons:
- STRD has better tokenomics and its price action shows people recognize that. Moreover, it would be highly unfair to STRD holders, let alone that it would be very difficult to make everyone whole thus damaging trust in the project;
- ATOM has been going through a bad period, with poor price action and constant drama surrounding its tokenomics, etc;
- last but not the least, as others mentioned before, it’s a big sovereignty risk as well
Just my 2 cents into this but definitely a no go from my point of view.