With the Osmosis management team’s merger proposal having failed, and their stated position being that they won’t entertain other offers, I’d like to open a discussion on the forum: how would you structure a hostile takeover offer from the Cosmos Hub to Osmosis?
My working assumption is that nothing prevents Cosmos governance from drafting such a proposal, passing it, and then presenting it to OSMO holders for their own vote. Standard corporate takeover toolkits — management incentive packages, token holder buyouts, tender-style mechanics — seem at least plausibly adaptable to this setting. And given that the alternative being offered to OSMO holders is effectively maintenance mode, I’d expect a credibly structured offer to be competitive.
But the interesting work is in the mechanism design, and that’s what I’d like to surface ideas on.
I think this can proceed in parallel to any other ideas long term alternative Cosmos liquidity infrastructure from Cosmos Lab.
3 Likes
Getting to a reasonable offer that Osmosis gov would accept in a world where the team has exited actually feels like the easy part.
The real question is who would execute the migration / maintain the product afterwards.
2 Likes
Just bring Emeris back and incentivize pools with the money Osmosis wanted. They’re wounded, strike while they’re down.
1 Like
I do not support this. I believe the hub should not rescue or acquire any single dex, whether friendly or hostile. A dex is a venue not a moat. Flow should go where execution is best and liquidity is deepest. if osmosis is the best, it will win. If not, it does not deserve a monopoly. The hub should build neutral rails for the interchain not buy relevance for itself
5 Likes
The crux of this argument has always been value accrual to both $ATOM holders and $OSMO holders. The biggest problem was any buyout would probably lead to massive sell pressure on $ATOM, hence the question, how valuable would a buyout be to $ATOM holders?
So starting with the basics, what is the $OSMO token and how does it achieve value? $OSMO is the governance token for the Osmosis chain and value is achieved by burning fees generated by chain revenue. Therefore it is touted as being deflationary. That is pretty much everything in a nut shell
So how do we allign value for $ATOM holders, whilst also keeping that $OSMO value accrual method? Here is a simple solution.
Burn the entirety of the Cosmos HUB CP and create a burn derivative token of burnt $ATOM. I personally like the name $PHOENIX. Next, make $PHOENIX the chain token for a chain similar to Osmosis, where all the Osmsis contracts will lie. $PHOENIX is the gas and governance token for that chain. Next, airdrop the $PHOENIX token pro rata to $OSMO holders (there will be no other way to get $PHOENIX, (intially)). $PHOENIX will then operate like the current $OSMO token; fees generated by apps on the new/altered Osmosis chain, will buy-back and burn $PHOENIX. The Cosmos HUB then commit to create a deep $PHOENIX- $ATOM LP on the new/altered chain, with $ATOM incentives allocated for a set period. From there an app can be deployed on the Cosmos HUB, where anybody can burn $ATOM to create $PHOENIX.
Obviously, this is not the perfect solution because the value of $PHOENIX will have to be bootstrapped by the HUB to make the merger valuable to $OSMO hodlers. However, for long term alignment, this in my opinion, provides a better solution to the whole debate. $PHOENIX may experience volatile price action at first, but should the volume from the DEX prove as valuable as the previous prop suggests, it should also see quick growth, where the $PHOENIX token remains deflationary (until the economics dictate otherwise)
1 Like
No. First you push for the yes vote in the Osmosis proposal even after saying that Osmosis failed and moving to the hub won’t solve any issues. Then when proposal is failing you changed and said it was bad deal for the hub, and now again with this proposal?
Osmosis is totally different, we are not talking about private equity here, we are talking about liquid tokens. If the proposal had passed, then the full treasury of the Cosmos hub would be gone all the $20M and we would had been left holding the OSMO bag, meanwhile Osmosis founders would have cashout and enjoy the Cosmos hub treasury. Thanks to the proposal failing, the Cosmos hub still has the full treasury and Osmosis said on twitter that they will keep focus on the project so it is the best for both entities. The Osmosis proposal was very good for Osmosis but terrible for the Cosmos hub and you were suggesting to vote yes on such a bad deal for the Cosmos hub, so not interested in other attempts you try to make the proposal pass again
2 Likes
How about no? Plus it’s been explicit that the hub doesn’t want dead weight as seen in the proposal results.
1 Like
If possible and if a dedicated team can work on osmosis, then yes, I support this.
The recent vote was not just about $osmo token, it was everything on and about osmosis that the team owns. That includes pools, governance, treasury and 1/2 founders including team.
Found a North Korean on Fiverr who said he’d code a dex for less than a tenth of the price. Gotta pay him in XMR though. He said Cosmos sucks.
1 Like
Man I’d do it for a tenth of that. I’d learn the stack and all too.
1 Like
I also take atom for my exclusive content on OF! what nonsense! 
1 Like
The merge proposal, this thread created by “mr. burnin down billion dollar blockchains” and the ecosystem as a whole with its endless money printing are all nonsense.
1 Like