Cosmos Hub Ecosystem Growth & Developer Acquisition 2023

ALPHAGROWTH PROPOSAL FOR

Cosmos Hub

ATOM GROWTH DAO – Growth & Developer Acquisition 2023

Best read on Pinata

Change log

  • 2023-01-25 Created initial post
  • 2023-01-25 Changed name and Updated Mandate

Outline

  1. [Preface]

  2. [Overview]

  3. [Vision and Mandate]

  4. [DeFi Operations]

  5. [Developer Acquisition]

  6. [Getting Started]

  7. [About Us]

  8. [What We Provide]

  9. [Track Record]

  10. [Project Deliverables]

  11. [Reviewer Committee]

  12. [Team]

  13. [Budget Request]

  14. [Bonus Structure]

Preface

On December 19th, 2022, Cosmos Hub Prop 88 was accepted, and a tax was created to fund the community pool, ongoing. “This large pool of funds is used to fund the growth of the ecosystem through grants, development funding and also community building.”

This signals that the community is not 100 percent content with the current avenues for maintenance and development, grants, and funding. Interchain Foundation (ICF) and All in Bits Inc. (AiB) are excellent organizations, but the need for extra support now requires advancing the Cosmos Hub.

On Jan 12th, 2023, a discussion was started in the Cosmos Hub governance forum around starting a grants program. The team is quite impressive, stacked with talented people throughout the Cosmos ecosystem. There are many valuable frameworks outlined in the proposal above; however, after running Developer Acquisition Grants programs for the past 18 months, AlphaGrowth has spotted multiple deficiencies in the ATOM Accelerator DAO proposal.

Our proposal aims to integrate the best parts of the ATOM Accelerator DAO proposal, ATOM ONE Constitution, and ATOM 2.0 white paper, as well as AlphaGrowth’s experience, to drive value to the ATOM token.

Overview

On the morning of January 23, the AlphaGrowth team was asked to join a Twitter Spaces event involving the review of the ATOM grants program. After a sufficient time listening to the conversation, it was clear that much of the line of questioning was in regard to company formation and framework and was process-driven, versus taking into account the goals and realities of running a grants program.

After engaging in the Twitter Spaces conversation and proposal review, AlphaGrowth was asked by multiple community members to create a competing proposal to help keep the Cosmos Hub ecosystem healthy.

“The vision of the Cosmos Network, as laid out in 2016, has been realized.”

— ATOM 2.0 white paper

Although the vision has been realized, this doesn’t mean the work is over. We believe that the story has just started, and there is a much bigger opportunity for Cosmos Hub.

For more than 18 months, AlphaGrowth has helped acquire developers and dApps on behalf of ecosystems. We know we can help Cosmos Hub with awareness, execution, and impact.

After a deep review of the current proposal discussion in the comment section, AlphaGrowth has outlined the benefits of the current proposal:

  • Reviewer Committee creation
  • Oversight Committee creation
  • Funding and budget breakdown
  • Timeframe of proposal

In our initial review, we found that the current proposal is a process-heavy framework lacking a coherent vision or roadmap of what should be funded. We found other missing requirements in the program we will look to address in this proposal.

In order of importance, we will address

  1. Vision: A clear mandate for the grants program.
  2. KPIs: How to drive accretive value to the ATOM token
  3. Operational experience running a grants program
  4. Developer acquisition marketing campaigns and costs
  5. Upstart costs in terms of time and capital

Other differences between our approach and other considered proposals

  • We have experience running multiple grants programs
  • We are established and have been in business since 2018
  • We have 800+ developer teams and dApps looking for their next project
  • We have an existing developer acquisition playbook
  • We have built a grants CRM and dashboard to help quickly score and evaluate applicants
  • We have an existing database of over 24,000 crypto projects
  • We have 2500+ relationships in crypto and have deployed projects via grants to 70 EVM and Cosmos-based projects
  • We will use funds to sponsor relevant hackathons
  • We will use funds to promote awareness of ecosystem projects
  • We will acquire projects and developers through our 10-person business development team
  • We will work with Cosmos Hub and the community to help define, communicate, and drive the vision narrative

Let’s dive into how!

Vision and Mandate

As a public good, the Cosmos Hub has been very successful in providing a secure bridging technology platform to the entire COSMOS ecosystem via IBC. However, if you ask most crypto users what is the utility of ATOM, most users can’t tell you. It’s not explicit that incentivized staking to two-thirds of the token creates a secured Hub for the rest of the IBC to exist.

The utility of ATOM must become explicit for the narrative to grow. Drawing inspiration from other successful DeFi projects across crypto at large, there are multiple strategies that can be applied immediately to add utility to the ATOM token.

With the understanding that the security of the bridges drives all current value of the ATOM token, offloading DeFi risk to external appchains to provide token utility is of utmost importance. With the success of the Osmosis appchain as the prominent Cosmos-based DEX, we can see a path on how to build or partner with existing appchains to increase DeFi activity and token utility.

The narrative we propose is a campaign to turn the ATOM token into a commodity.
ATOM should have all the same DeFi categories as ETH has, with multiple alternative appchains and dApps to choose from. On a categorical level, this includes but is not limited to ATOM-centric

  • DEXs
  • Order books
  • Lending (money market, AMM money market)
  • Fixed-rate lending
  • Liquid staking
  • Collateralized debt positions (CDP)
  • Yield aggregators and strategies
  • Derivatives and options
  • Algo-stables (ATOM Backed)
  • Synthetics
  • Launchpads
  • Reserve currency
  • Concentrated liquidity
  • Leveraged farming
  • Prediction markets
  • Indexes (token sets)
  • Privacy services
  • Insurance

From an infrastructure level, more attention should also be paid to

  • Wallets (social unlock, Web2 login)
  • Fiat onramps/offramps (Kado, Stably, Transak, Ramp)
  • Payments (Superfluid, MoonPay)
  • Debit card (stealth for now)
  • Cross-chain comms (LayerZero, LiFi, Paloma, Axelar)
  • Name service

Many of the items above do not need to be built and can be bought through partnerships and business models that add revenue streams and real yield to ATOM holders.

Speaking of real yield, the ATOM 2.0 white paper fundamentally aims to increase the footprint of the Cosmos Hub to help generate more fees in ATOM token. One question that keeps coming up is which appchains want to engage in this plan and how much in fees would be generated. The products required to develop this vision are as follows:

  • Cross-chain rollup settlement
  • Blockspace futures auction marketplace (Interchain Scheduler)
  • MEV acquisition (Interchain Scheduler)
  • Contract-based token swaps, lockups, and vaults (Interchain Allocator)
  • Liquid Staking as a Service
  • Appchain as a Service

While these are revolutionary ideas, they have not been battle-tested in the wild. It is our opinion that these concepts should be funded experimentally on appchains before risking the security and entirety of the ATOM market cap. The program should begin to deploy grants and coordinate to begin to slowly go down the path of growing the Cosmos Hub footprint.

DeFi Operations

Make Number Go Up

We all want to see the ATOM token go up and to the right slowly, surely, and sustainably. Without much in the way of utility or optionality of ATOM, a higher token price might just be a matter of waiting for the next bull market. Instead of waiting on the bench, AlphaGrowth will implement its proven strategies to foster sustainable token health.

Foremost, the more places there are to put ATOM, the more it will rise. Educating users during the customer journey will play a lead role in this. Also, if you can increase the number of goods and services that your token can plug into, you will increase its velocity, therefore increasing its price (based on the modern theory of money). Additionally, the demand for ATOM’s utility must exceed its supply. Further, to align with the crucial real-yield narrative, the fee generation of ATOM must exceed its emissions.

Other AlphaGrowth-implemented strategies include an ATOM debit card, concentrated liquidity vaults, downside protection vaults, multi-chain partnerships, token buy-back plans, and strategic DeFi listings.

End game? Number. Go. Up.

Buy Pressure vs. Sell Pressure

What are the things we can currently do with ATOM? After examining the actions a user can currently take, we can score the actions. Below, we give examples of activities, their associated value, and types of viable distributions available for the associated activity.

User Action Matrix

Activity Value Types Distribution per Activity
Pool Token +2 to +3 Incentives
Buy +2 Investment
Lockup/Staking +1 Incentives, Emissions
Lending, Bonding +1 Incentives
Purchasing Internal Product +1 Premine, Airdrop, Incentives
Hodling +1 Incentives, Airdrop
Purchasing External Product -1 Tax, Lockup
Selling -2 Tax, Lockup

Minimizing the pressure to sell ATOM while maximizing activities such as bonding and pooling will further better its overall health.

Token Optionality

On a granular level, implementing token optionality means leveraging both the community and business development partnerships. In the above User Action Matrix, we referenced some of the most commonplace uses of tokens.

Can we do all of these things with ATOM token? What about buying tacos? Can we buy tacos with ATOM? Optionality is freedom, and freedom is good.

How can we ensure ATOM has enough optionality to sustain its price over time? Let’s start with the end goal in mind. Our goal is to make ATOM a commodity. That’s really the only outcome we want.

We can think about it like a game of chess: If we get to the end of a game of chess, and there are no more options, that’s bad. When we run out of options, we lose. We don’t want to lose. We want ATOM to have many, many places to go. A token with nowhere to go is worthless.

Our goal is to put ATOM in so many places, across so many exchanges and applications, that the U.S. government considers it a commodity like gold or pork belly.

Incidentally, this will also create whale protection, crucial for stabilizing our project. Far and wide distribution of ATOM is our only real weapon against whales manipulating its price.

What Chuck E. Cheese Can Teach Us About Tokenomics

Imagine we’re standing outside a brand-new Chuck E. Cheese. We’ve got $1 billion in Chuck E. Cheese tokens in our pocket, and obviously we’re super excited to go in to play games and win prizes.

We walk inside and find Chuck E. Cheese completely devoid of games. Not a single one.

Confused, we ask the person at the front what the deal is.

He tells us, “Oh, we’re waiting for more developers to come build the games. The games are coming soon. Just stick around. But hey, join our Telegram and Discord to see when the games get here!”

We feel lost and let down. We came all this way for nothing. Oh, and those $1 billion in tokens? Worthless.

App Store

In a different scenario, we are super excited about the new iPhone – so many cool ways to use it, right?! But when we unbox it, connect it to the internet, and open the App Store, we find nothing. No games, no social media, no camera, nada. Not even a calculator app. Now, what? Sorry, Steve Jobs, we’re switching to Android.

At this point, we may be beating a dead horse, but if we want ATOM to go up, it has to go many places first.

DeFi operations are the effective execution of taking modern monetary theory and applying token optionality.

By having more dApps use ATOM, token optionality fundamentally increases, which increases token value through a simple formula: MV = PQ.

You can read more about token optionality on AlphaGrowth’s series about solving problems that help blockchain projects grow and scale.

Developer Acquisition

There is a common flaw that many grant programs have, called proximity bias. Proximity bias in this context is that to receive a grant from Cosmos Hub, you must be Cosmos Hub-aware. To be frank, unfortunately, most crypto projects who begin building in crypto don’t even know that Cosmos Hub exists. The result of this is that there are hundreds of high-quality teams the community and ecosystem are missing from the grant-selection process.

The other fundamental flaw in the current program is thinking that Cosmos Hub needs new early-stage projects to build on its ecosystem. Cosmos Hub has the available funds to also buy existing projects to go multichain. Buying teams vs. funding early-stage builders is a functionally different process that requires an outbound approach vs. an inbound approach.

Sharing Success

Through running multiple ecosystem business development teams over the past year, we learned that one of the most important aspects is bringing the community together through wins for the community. Many projects we have attracted to new chains simply want exposure and distribution for their project and acceptance and awareness from the community. To help ecosystems with high-value, low-cost activities, we provide support for ecosystems through press releases, Twitter campaigns, and other community engagement such as in-person meetups, cocktail events, and community-building activities.

Developer Awareness

The next-best way to incentivize developers to engage in the community is through awareness and developing real relationships backed by real conviction in the form of capital. Many say imitation is the highest form of flattery, but we believe investment is even higher.

Event Sponsorship

Along with community events, expanding awareness of other developer communities is extremely important. In the past, we have helped communities such as Vyper expand to aligned events like the Python community event. We will provide guidance and support to find other aligned events for Cosmos Hub to engage with and get involved in.

Hackathon Sponsorship

Hackathons are a very well-known tactic to engage developers in a new community. For over 10 years, the AlphaGrowth team has participated in, sponsored, and run hackathons for different tech industries. On behalf of the Vyper framework, we helped sponsor and acquire excited developers to come hack away at projects. The AlphaGrowth team also ran a $1 million marketing hackathon for the NEAR ecosystem to bring more exposure to Web2 marketers about the tools built on the chain.

About Us
What We Provide (SITED Framework)
Track Record
redacted because length restrictions.
read entire proposal here

Project Deliverables

Ecosystem Evaluation Setup

One major issue that AlphaGrowth has identified is the lack of a clear narrative and roadmap of the Cosmos Hub ecosystem. Without clear messaging around desired projects and the grants program, ecosystem growth slows. While Cosmos Hub is winning by being the most secure bridge and a staking dApp, what made Cosmos Hub successful originally may not help continue growth.

We will provide a roadmap and strategy for the ideal ecosystem layout. From a quick initial identification of shortfalls, we see that ATOM could benefit from the addition of multiple types of infrastructure wallets (social unlock, Web2 login), fiat onramps/offramps (Kado, Stably, Transak, Ramp), payments (Superfluid, MoonPay), debit card (stealth for now), cross-chain comms (LayerZero, LiFi, Paloma, Axelar), and name service.

In terms of DeFi dApps and appchains, money markets (lending protocols), bonding protocols, options, yield optimizers, vaults, voter escrow DEXs, leveraged LP positions, secondary bond markets, and even another DEX or two would be beneficial.

We will provide a developer journey audit to identify onboarding blockers as well as the strategy to mitigate them. Our first step is to interview all current grant winners and understand their issues and rough patches joining the ecosystem. We describe many of the common onboarding blockers in the section above.

Data & Software Usage

redacted because length restrictions.
read entire proposal here

Monthly Business Development and Outreach

After the ecosystem narrative and criteria are established, AlphaGrowth will leverage its data and insights to identify all acquisition and partnership targets for the Cosmos Hub ecosystem. AlphaGrowth will score and sort rank targets based on a multifactor approach including onchain and offchain data.

Next, we will reach out via Telegram, Discord, LinkedIn and Twitter to start a conversation and present the Cosmos Hub opportunity to prospective projects.

If the team is interested, we can then discuss and negotiate the costs associated around migrating the dApp to the Cosmos Hub chain. On top of funding, dApps can request multiple other ecosystem services:

  • Marketing AMAs
  • In-person events
  • Loans to bootstrap liquidity
  • Investor introductions
  • Token swaps
  • Bridging services
  • Liquidity incentives

Next, we will help introduce and guide incoming dApps through common blockers and provide technical support to help launch the dApp.

Finally, the business development team will hand off the dApp to the marketing team to help with ecosystem exposure and launch.

Developer Marketing

There are two parts to developer marketing with which AlphaGrowth will help Cosmos Hub:

  • Developer acquisition marketing
  • dApp ecosystem marketing support

We have found developer acquisition to work through four processes: hackathon sponsorship, community event engagement/sponsorship, Twitter and LinkedIn ad campaigns, and direct message campaigns. We will commit to sponsoring an event, hackathon, or community at least once a month.

Upon launch, the most goodwill appreciation you can receive from community dApps comes from helping to support and shout out the dApps that have chosen to launch on your ecosystem. We will spend marketing dollars around the launch of each dApp that comes to the ecosystem.

Reporting

AlphaGrowth will also communicate monthly through reports and calculations on the campaign’s progress:

  1. Progress of grantees
  2. Outbound pipeline status
  3. Feedback from developers
  4. Narrative audit
  5. Use of funds: distributed grants, provision of initial liquidity

The team will establish direct communication channels with the community to post reports and receive feedback. We will also set up biweekly community office hours with grantees.

We’ll say it again: The Cosmos Hub community will always know where it stands, and more importantly, where it is going.

Team

The ATOM GROWTH DAO will be run by the team at AlphaGrowth led by founder Bryan Colligan who has over 9 years experience in crypto. Upon the introduction of DeFi in 2020 Bryan left FT Partners investment bank to pursue his passion in helping build the Future of Decentralized Finance. Bryan can be seen here helping run a web3 techcrunch demo day: The Cross Chain Coalition WEB3 Demo Day - YouTube
https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryancolligan/

Budget Request

Legal Setup

  • Base rate (one-time): 2,000 ATOM
  • Total cost: 2,000 ATOM

Ecosystem Evaluation Setup

  • Base rate (one-time): 4,000 ATOM
  • Total cost: 4,000 ATOM

Data & Software Usage

  • Base rate (one-time): 2,000 ATOM
  • Total cost: 2,000 ATOM

Monthly Business Development and Outreach

  • Base rate (monthly): 5,000 ATOM
  • Total cost (6 months): 30,000 ATOM

Developer Acquisition Marketing

  • Base rate (monthly): 4,000 ATOM
  • Total cost (6 months): 24,000 ATOM

Reviewer Committee

  • Base rate (monthly): 2,000 ATOM
  • Total cost (6 months): 12,000 ATOM

Total 6-month service fee: 74,000 ATOM

Grant Deployment

  • Month 1: 10,000 ATOM
  • Month 2: 20,000 ATOM
  • Month 3: 30,000 ATOM
  • Month 4: 40,000 ATOM
  • Month 5: 40,000 ATOM
  • Month 6: 40,000 ATOM

Total 6-month grants: 180,000 ATOM

Total all-in cost: 254,000 ATOM

Bonus Structure

For every project and client to align incentives, we require a $200,000 bonus commission to be evaluated and voted on by the community. After 6 months, we are requesting 20,000 ATOM tokens.

KPIs for bonus structure are as follows:

  • 100 new ways to utilize ATOM via pools, money markets, utilities, and dApp integration on both Cosmos appchains and as utility on EVM dApps
  • $100 million of total market capitalization added in the next 6 months
  • Sponsoring 2 Cosmos ecosystem hackathons
  • 10 student organization sponsorships
  • 500+ applicants for Cosmos Hub grants
  • Weekly AMAs on progress and new initiatives

Governance votes

The following items summarize the voting options and what it means for this proposal:

wallet address: cosmos1yrkhlplhukmnfrwsmt9nak0g8cch0eusuqqaus

Voting
By voting YES, you indicate support for funding the Growth & Developer Acquisition program that will be managed by a multisig committee of 5 members.
By voting NO, you do not support this proposal in its current form and refuse to fund the Growth & Developer Acquisition Program.
By voting ABSTAIN, you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal but want to contribute to the quorum.
By voting NOWITHVETO, you express that you consider this proposal malicious or harmful and would like to see depositors penalized by revocation of the deposit, which contributes towards an automatic ⅓ veto threshold.

4 Likes

YES YES YES ! good job thx u

We need to see some previous results from you, not only words on paper. I’ve seen your website and basically, you guys have a database with all the investors and projects that need funding.

Cosmos community it’s not stupid to allocate and throw so much money at you without any previous results.

I need to see some successful campaigns from you guys, what have you done for other projects? I need to see exactly the numbers. I cannot trust your words.

1 Like

We should exhaust means of collaboration before resorting to competition. What actions have you taken to collaborate with the Orbital team prior to posting this competing proposal?

4 Likes

Honestly, i am not so sure about your proposition.

Your total 6 months fees : 74000atom is higher than them (9months) and their profile seems to be much higher and more well known. and you will ask for a bonus fee.

Only difference is see the amount on grant deployment which is different.

I will vote abstain for this.

Need some more added value.

1 Like

Thank you for this question.
We Approached Orbital to collaborate and they stated they would be pushing the proposal on chain.
And up to collab once our proposal goes through.

Tanned,
Thank you for the feedback.

Your total 6 months fees : 74000 atom is higher

Yes it is higher. 15-30% will be ad and marketing spend on Developer Marketing. Which is what it takes to attract developers to grants programs and RFPs.

their profile seems to be much higher

We are a bootstrapped B2B firm and well known among ecosystem professionals.
We are experts at what we do.

and you will ask for a bonus fee.

Bonus fee is success based and affirmation from the community to continue working with the community as reapply.

Only difference is see the amount on grant deployment which is different.

We have a vision for where grant money will go, we know how to attract developers to build and provide proposals. please listen to the answers at the 46:30 mark:
(Atom Grant Program DAO AMA with Cephii – TerraSpaces)

I think you should ask for the funds in milestones so we can see what you deliver. You are asking too much. Let’s start with the first milestone and then we can see some results. I’m all in for bringing more developers to Cosmos.

This second initiative could actually be a very good fit to complement the ATOM Orbital DAO. Their focus is likely going to be on infrastructure funding primarely. From your set of skills you seem to be very well positioned to target protocol layer & apps devs.

So my initial line of thoughts would be that you should be partners.
On the financial side though I can easily understand ATOMs funding ICS infrastructure, I can also imagine giving some grants to protocols but I don’t think this should be compared one to the other as they are totally different beasts.

Anyway my feeling on this matter is that you guyz should see around a table and talk partnership instead of competing. Maybe this is unintended but your proposal seemed quite critic of the Orbit DAO. Having another controversy battle in cosmos would be stupid imho, moreover if you fight for different goals which in fact would turn out to be complementary right ?!

1 Like

Hello,

And thanks for this proposal,

Usually, when i see big numbers, i like to find “proofs” somewhere.

800 developers, 24K crypto projects, 2500 relationships, 70 EVM and Cosmos projects,

And when i went to your website, i basically couldn’t find any info about that beautiful numbers.
Maybe i didn’t search well, but all i can see is some partnership with Kava (which sucks in my view) and some unknown projects…

Where can we find a record about your background, accomplishements, fails, knowledge of Cosmos particularities, etc ?

Same for the dashboard/grants CRM. It doesn’t look achieved nor functional.

The Orbit program has its flaws, but at least we know the people involved, we know their background in the Cosmos space, and they don’t make us dreaming with big numbers without substance.

But i may be wrong and then would be happy to read more about your team.

Cheers.

2 Likes

we should write a policy in black and white and visible to all in order to make the points related to funding clear. We should perhaps start by asking for the composition of the team that is requesting funding. The work already done in the past (to establish an amount in line with the past performance of the team. If the team is new … I don’t see why it would ask for an astronomical sum but it should not necessarily be a rejection for fund them). To encourage the team to work well, we should therefore agree on a starting percentage for the first release of funds (example 10% of the request). Then unlock as and when not time … but the work done. Imagine that the team wants to be funded for 5 tasks, we could imagine that upon delivery of each task the partial release of funds is executed. So once the last task is delivered the payment would then be complete.

I read the proposal as posted on IPFS. If your team’s experience with other notable ecosystems like NEAR and protocols like Aurora are any indication, there are various things that I believe your team does well, but there are other things that I’m concerned about.

Summary

  • I will only comment on the vision and mandate for now because until these issues are addressed this proposal should not be considered in any serious capacity.
  • There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the Hub’s role in the Interchain which should invalidate any request for funding or authorities to solicit builders on behalf of the Hub.

Preamble

First, I should mention that I advocate for plurality. I think it’s important that different and diverse funding platforms exist on the Cosmos Hub. However, given that the previous proposal is not on-chain yet and you’ve framed it as a competing proposal, I will leave comments with that mind. I generally agree with @maximus and @Govmos regarding finding opportunities to collaborate.

Current Stance

I do not, by any means, support a significant pool-spend proposal that comes solely from you or your team at the moment. I do not think you understand the Hub or her needs. Your proposal strikes me as opportunistic and hastily put-together.

I raise the below points because I believe they are deeply relevant to anyone seeking the authority to represent and grant funds on behalf of the Hub. I say this representing only my own viewpoint (not that of the wider community) and unaware of a lot of what y’all do (though I have visited and read your website). If I am mistaken in any areas, I am very open to changing my opinion.

Vision and Mandate

Reading this section seems to indicate that you either don’t understand the Hub very well or that you’ve hastily put together your proposal based on a similar “competing grant proposal” you recently raised on Osmosis.

Taking a closer look (block-quotes contain unaltered quotes from your proposal):

It’s not explicit that staking two-thirds of the token creates the secure infrastructure for the rest of the IBC to exist.

  • It’s not explicit because that’s not the case. The Hub’s ability to produce blocks does not “create the secure infrastructure of IBC” (aside from subsidizing development work on the inter-blockchain communication protocol, IBC), nor does it enable the existence of the rest of the Interchain.
  • I believe in this context you were referring to the “IBC ecosystem” but even so, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Cosmos functions.

The utility of ATOM must become explicit for the narrative to grow. Drawing
inspiration from other successful DeFi projects across crypto at large, there are
multiple strategies that can be applied immediately to add utility to the ATOM
token.

  • Which narrative?
  • Why do you mention “other successful DeFi projects”? The Hub is not a DeFi project.
  • The Hub and the Interchain have continued to grow despite not having an explicitly-stated utility.

With the understanding that the security of the bridges drives all current value
of the ATOM token, offloading DeFi risk to external appchains to provide token utility is of utmost importance. With the success of the Osmosis appchain as the prominent Cosmos-based DEX, we can see a path on how to build or partner with existing appchains to increase DeFi activity and token utility.

  • What do you mean the “security of the bridges” currently drives value to the Hub? Unless I am severely misunderstanding what you wrote, this is untrue.
  • Can you expand on the link you made between the Hub and Osmosis as “seeing a path on how to build or partner with existing appchains”?

ATOM should have all the same DeFi categories applied to it as ETH, with
multiple alternative appchains and dApps to choose from. On a categorical
level, this includes but is not limited to ATOM-centric

  • What does it mean to have DeFi categories applied to a token? Does that mean that ATOM should be used in the same way that ETH is used in its ecosystem?

Speaking of real yield, the ATOM 2.0 white paper fundamentally aims to
increase the footprint of the Cosmos Hub to help generate more fees in ATOM
token.

  • This seems reductive. The 2.0 whitepaper’s main purpose wasn’t to generate more ATOM fees, it was to “secure and capitalize ecosystem-critical applications, while serving as the port of entry for new Cosmos participants, and a coordinating center for the infrastructure and administrative concerns of the interchain.” Please note that while this would help increase the Hub’s utility as the Interchain scales, it is not simply an extractive method to generate ATOM fees (in fact, one could say that fees in other tokens are more important).

While these are revolutionary ideas, they have not been battle-tested in the
wild. It is our opinion that these concepts should be funded experimentally on
appchains before risking the security and entirety of the ATOM market cap.

  • How much will the grants program focus on the 2.0 vision?

Conclusions

I do not believe this proposal should be considered in any serious capacity at the moment. There are additional problems waiting in the next section of the proposal, namely: “End game? Number. Go. Up.”

4 Likes

I echo a lot of this sentiment. A lot of what is said leads me to believe that the proposer doesn’t truly understand Cosmos or the hub. How can you hope to grow the hub if you don’t understand it?

3 Likes

Hello @alphagrowth

I am wishing you well with your proposal as I believe in the virtue of healthy competition. Like I replied to you by email a few days ago, we are confident with our team. We’ve worked very hard to assemble it and get the right components together.

Like @abratusz, we’re pro-plurality of options for grants within the ecosystem and pro-plurality of DAOs in general, as long as they can work effectively and provide value for the Hub and the ATOM holders.

A collaboration at this stage is premature since this demand is formulated at the last moment. We can keep an open dialogue if there is a need to collaborate after the voting so that we do best by the community.

3 Likes

because the vision of the hub is not explicit … just 1% of the ATOM investors know but not more … it must be more explicit. investors are lost too … maybe need a work on this way

We appreciate your feedback.
We are developer marketing and ecosystem growth experts.
Writing out the game theoretical intricacies of how the ATOM token incentivized validators to secure the Hub and eventually IBC relayers it not the purpose this proposal.

The purpose is to layout a plan for a business development strategy on how to make more revenue and create more value for the ATOM token. ATOM’s value is appchain adjacent and does not really have any other utility.

We updated the proposal to make the narrative explicit.

Which narrative?

"The narrative we propose is a campaign to turn the ATOM token into a commodity.
ATOM should have all the same DeFi categories as ETH has, with multiple alternative appchains and dApps to choose from. "

Why do you mention “other successful DeFi projects”? The Hub is not a DeFi project.
The Hub and the Interchain have continued to grow despite not having an explicitly-stated utility.

The token utility of ATOM will go up if the are more Defi use cases for ATOM. This does not have to live on the Hub, but needs to exist and be explicit on where and how a user can use ATOM.

  • Can you expand on the link you made between the Hub and Osmosis as “seeing a path on how to build or partner with existing appchains”?

The largest demand for ATOM came when Osmosis launched and there was the ability to pool ATOM with OSMO to earn more OSMO token. More pools and DeFi utilities will create more things to do with ATOM.

This seems reductive. The 2.0 whitepaper’s main purpose wasn’t to generate more ATOM fees

If you listen to podcasts to the writers of the ATOM 2.0 paper, they literally state that their intention is to build more utility for ATOM and generate more fees through the interchain scheduler and interchain allocator.

  • How much will the grants program focus on the 2.0 vision?

Great question,the first stage would be creating a business case for ATOM 2.0 in terms of research on how much MEV revenue can be created. Also researching and building a business case around how many chains would want to participate in the ATOM 2.0 vision. It was never signaled how many appchains wanted to participate.

Conclusions

Are you saying you want Number to go down?

even atom rejected 2.0 why are we pushing in that direction?