Discussion: AEZ Growth & the ATOM Alignment Treasury

That’s the best phrasing for LaaS.

LaaS can be a value proposition for teams to join the AEZ. We need that as there are teams migrating away, or at least double pivoting, such as the announcement of CANTO today with Zkevm.

1 Like

Good questions. Before getting into my answer, I want to reiterate that my proposal is a long-term strategy. In the short and medium term, I believe that the Hub should prioritize maximizing distribution of ATOM by significantly increasing the amount of ATOM liquidity lent to all ATOM-aligned and potentially ATOM-aligned endeavors.

The meme/narrative value of ATOM being the reserve asset of the interchain will almost certainly be worth far more than the interest it could possibly extract. The Hub should charge little-to-no interest and not require burdensome security guarantees until the meme of ATOM as preferred reserve asset of the interchain has fully sunk in. No unnecessary obstacles should be placed in the way of maximizing distribution of ATOM liquidity where strategically relevant.

As for specific short-term deals to pursue, Stride’s proposed next steps and the two use cases Noam proposed above are good places to start.

All that said, I still believe that the Hub should set expectations that it will eventually charge interest on the liquidity it lends so that liquidity borrowers are not surprised when the time comes. I also believe that it should begin investing now in the machinery that would enable the Hub to charge interest so that there is not a significant lag between the community’s desire to start charging and its ability to do so. Therefore, I think that the Hub should do a phased proof of concept with Stride, Neutron, and Astroport to double down on what is already working.


Phase 1

Goals: 1) gain first LaaS user, 2) demonstrate that the trustless software for LaaS works, and 3) responsibly allocate additional ATOM liquidity

Hub offers a line of liquidity credit to Stride (e.g., up to an additional 500K ATOM for the stATOM<>ATOM pool on Astroport). The interest rate paid on this liquidity would be determined by the line of credit’s utilization rate, similar to Frax’s time-weighted variable interest rate. Set the starting interest rate at 0% and the target utilization rate high (e.g., 95%). Stride will want to borrow at least up to the target utilization rate since it would be able to do so for free. Stride could then do its own cost-benefit analysis to see how much more ATOM liquidity it can bear profitably. This way, the focus is on getting adoption (Stride becomes first LaaS user), proves that the trustless software works, and allocates more ATOM liquidity.

The Hub shouldn’t try to make this line of liquidity credit a profit center (yet) because it would place the full extent of the liquidity burden on Stride, which doesn’t seem fair because Neutron and Astroport are also benefiting from the liquidity [and because it should be prioritizing distribution]. That’s where phase 2 comes in.

Phase 2

Goals: 1) gain additional LaaS users, 2) gain information about value splits, and 3) responsibly allocate additional ATOM liquidity

Hub offers identical lines of liquidity credit to Neutron and Astroport (i.e., additional 500K ATOM each for the asATOM<>ATOM pool on Astroport). Use the amount of ATOM borrowed by each of the three borrowers to understand the relative value of the liquidity to each party. For example, if Stride borrows up to a 1% interest rate, Astroport up to a 0.5% interest rate, and Neutron up to a 0.25% interest rate, we could infer that the value of the line of the liquidity credit to Stride is approximate twice that of Astroport and four times that of Neutron. This information will be important for Phase 3.

Phase 3

Goals: 1) prove AEZ’s ability to strike multilateral deals, 2) prove that trustless software for multilateral deals works, and 3) responsibly allocate additional ATOM liquidity

Hub offers an additional line of liquidity credit with an interest rate that is paid by Stride, Neutron, and Astroport for the same stATOM<>ATOM pool on Astroport. The three parties would use the data in phase two to reach alignment on the interest fee split between the three organizations. Any of the three parties may borrow from this shared line of credit ONLY if they are already borrowing at least the target utilization of their individual line of credit. Any party opt to freeze this line of liquidity credit at any time.

By phase 3, if none of the parties ever borrow beyond the target utilization rate, the Hub may be making zero revenue. If the Hub ever feels the need to turn LaaS into a profit center, it could implement a minimum interest rate and/or reduce the target utilization rate. That said, the Hub should prioritize distribution over profits for the foreseeable future. The meme of ATOM becoming the reserve asset of the interchain will be far more valuable than the revenue it would generate on interest for the time being.


After stages 1 and 2, all parties involved at that stage should reflect on what worked vs. what didn’t and determine whether/how the planned next stage can be improved. After stage 3, all parties should get together to propose what a stage 4 might look like.


This post does not include any senior debt provisions because there is a lot of low hanging fruit that the Hub can pursue before resorting to more complicated mechanisms and the Hub should not place any unnecessary obstacles in the way of distribution of ATOM liquidity to strategic positions. I agree with Noam that the Hub would be smart to use concentrated liquidity to reduce IL risk.

1 Like

Excellent inputs! Commencing with incremental, well-defined steps is indeed the prudent path forward. Stride’s pragmatic approach outlines a clear trajectory with actionable measures, marking a substantial advancement for the AEZ.

The use of $ATOM as a denominator for LPs merits serious consideration, while revising the Community pool architecture, as suggested by Noam, appears judicious to fostering improved coordination between cc and the Hub.
Big thanks to @Noam and @Stride for their contributions. Looking forward to seeing what unfolds following this discussion.