[DRAFT PROPOSAL] Cosmos Resurrection Committee - Agressive Marketing campaign

Hub Proposals
1

Cosmos Resurrection Committee (CRC)

More detaild with all screenshots (and constantly updated version is here:

Cosmos is dead… And we urgently need to take actions to resurrect it!

For this purpose, we are creating the Cosmos Resurrection Committee

Introduction

Everyone knows that Cosmos has the best technology, just…

Wait, almost no one knows that Cosmos has the best technology

For a long time, we spent all resources on developing the technology and spent almost nothing on spreading information about it

While Ethereum and Solana invest significant resources in awareness and attention for their technologies, and support the growth of local communities, creators, and digital tools, Cosmos has almost completely ignored these aspects

We no longer have time to wait for institutions to choose the Cosmos SDK as a framework for building their own blockchains

Even if that happens, it won’t affect the price of $ATOM

The price of any coin is influenced by only two factors: Buying and Selling

  • When $ATOM is sold, its price falls

  • When $ATOM is bought, its price rises

To resurrect Cosmos, we need $ATOM to be bought!

And the amount of $ATOM bought must exceed the amount of $ATOM created due to inflation!

If 1000 new $ATOMs are minted today and are being sold, then to rise the price, someone would need to buy more than 1000 $ATOMs

At the time of writing (08/11/2025), the total supply of $ATOM is 477,140,000 (477 millions $ATOM)

At 10% inflation, we will have approximately 50 millions new $ATOM minted over the next year, most, if not all, of which will be sold

To rise the $ATOM price, we need 100 million $ATOMs to be purchased next year

Who will buy so many $ATOMs, and why?

Let’s first understand why people are buying $ATOM now:

  • To sell it later when the price of $ATOM rises

  • To stake $ATOM, receive rewards, and sell the rewards

  • To receive an airdrop

Obviously, up until now, people have been buying $ATOM solely for the purpose of selling it later, and so it’s no surprise that the price of $ATOM has fallen so dramatically, and now we’re where we are…

Someone might say, “Wait! Some people bought $ATOM to use it in different tools and services!” - and we agree, but with one caveat: No one knows these tools exist or how to use them

Cosmos spent a huge amount of money on creating technologies, but invested absolutely nothing in the business development and marketing of these technologies…

  • For $ATOM to grow, people need to buy $ATOM to use it in various tools and services

  • And for that to happen, it’s not just necessary for such tools and services exist, but we also need to make sure people know they exist and understand how to use them

Unfortunately, we no longer have time to incentivize educational projects and ambassador campaigns. This should have been done three years ago

In the current situation, the only thing that can quickly and effectively keep us afloat is Aggressive Marketing

This doesn’t mean we should stop developing and supporting old tools and services, or creating new ones. On the contrary, we need to keep doing it!

We just need to invest not only in tools and services, but also in business development and marketing!

This doesn’t mean we should abandon educational and ambassador campaigns. On the contrary, we need them!

We just need to draw attention to Cosmos now so there’s someone to educate!

Aggressive marketing, without support for services, tools, and educational initiatives on how to use them, will not give long-term results

While Cosmos Labs is busy attracting institutional investors and the InterChain Foundation is launching ambassador campaigns, the Cosmos Resurrection Committee will focus on aggressive marketing

And together, we will make $ATOM great again!

What do we mean by aggressive marketing?

  • Advertising on CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko

  • Advertising on X (ex-Twitter)

  • Advertising with influencers

Examples of advertising content:

  1. ATOM is the most undervalued coin because it has the best technology

  2. The coin that will generate the highest profit in 2026 is ATOM

  3. Cosmos Hub is ready to launch several services and tools that will create huge demand for ATOM

  4. Anyone who didn’t purchase ATOM in 2025 will be FOMO in 2026

  5. Urgently withdraw ATOM from centralized exchanges and store it in your cold wallets! Rumor has it that anyone storing ATOM on centralized exchanges could soon lose it, while those storing it in their wallets will receive an additional airdrop: links on Wallets

  6. Expert statement: We’ve conducted a study of various technologies and found that Cosmos Hub has the best technology in terms of price-quality ratio

  7. Cosmos Hub is undergoing major updates, which will result in ATOM’s ATH being updated

  8. Examples of ATOM price chart comparisons with ETH, which suggest a potential price of $120 in 2026-2027 (see the chapter “What can aggressive marketing give us?”)

Alternative examples of aggressive marketing:

  • Influencers with large audiences who trade coins live will be given 1,000 ATOMs to encourage them to say they have some ATOM in their bags and trade it, along with showing how they do it. If their ATOM trading is profitable at the end of the month, the Influencer will receive an additional 1,000 ATOMs. If their trading is negative, the Influencer will no longer receive 1,000 ATOMs

  • An overview of the Cosmos Ecosystem wallets (Leap, Kepler, Cosmostation) and how to use them, using examples from various decentralized exchanges (Osmosis, Astroport)

  • An overview of various services and tools that use ATOM

The Main Goals of Aggressive Marketing and How to Evaluate the Success of a Marketing Campaign

  1. Increasing demand for ATOM in the short term (with 10% inflation, approximately 50 million ATOMs will be available by 2026, meaning at least twice as many ATOMs must be purchased). The success of the marketing campaign can be assessed if 100 million ATOMs are purchased by 2026

  2. Reducing the supply of ATOMs on centralized exchanges (currently, approximately 25% of ATOMs are on centralized exchanges, meaning that by 2026, 25% of inflation, approximately 12.5 million ATOMs, will go to centralized exchanges as rewards). Success The marketing campaign can be assessed by the number of ATOMs that will be withdrawn from centralized exchanges to personal wallets

What actions are planned to be taken

  1. Create a Cosmos Resurrection Committee (CRC) as a DAO on daodao.zone, whose members must meet the following minimum requirements:

  • Be public figures who bear reputational risks for their actions

  • Have experience developing projects and communities on Cosmos

  • Possess the necessary and diverse competencies to make decisions on allocating funds to support the activities of enthusiasts, developers, projects, and marketing

    1. Request 2 million ATOMs from the Community Pool:

  • 1 million ATOMs will be delegated to validators who vote in favor of allocating 2 million ATOMs for the CRC

  • All rewards will be redelegated to validators to increase the CRC’s Voting Power

  • In the event of an unsuccessful marketing campaign, all ATOMs + rewards will be returned to the Community Pool

  • An additional 1 million ATOMs will be allocated to Aggressive Marketing, plus no more 20% will be used to provide liquidity for various decentralized exchanges and support projects and enthusiasts who create demand for ATOM

    1. CRC DAO management should not exceed 5% of the 1 million allocated funds. At the same time, management rewards for one participant must not exceed 50 EUR per hour

    2. Begin accepting and reviewing requests for funding for enthusiasts, developers, and projects:

  • Requests must be submitted as on-chain proposals, and the request itself must detail the amount requested, the basis for the request, the duration of the request, the projects to be implemented, and the metrics by which the degree of implementation can be assessed

  • CRC DAO participants must spend no more than 1 week from the date of submission reviewing the request

  • A maximum of 1 week after submitting the request, CRC DAO participants must vote on the proposal and release an on-chain statement of their decision, which will include an explanation from each CRC DAO participant as to why they voted FOR, AGAINST, ABSTAINED, or did not participate in the vote

  • If the number of requests exceeds the physical capacity of CRC DAO participants to review all requests within 1 week, CRC DAO participants must notify on-chain and receive an additional week for review applications

  • Any application, as well as any decision to allocate or deny funds, must be easily verifiable by the community

  • Any allocation of funds for CRC DAO management must also occur through the creation and voting of an on-chain proposal and comply with all requirements for reviewing applications for funds

  • To prevent fraud, funds will not be released all at once, but in installments

  • The applicant will be required to describe the stages of implementation for which the funds are required

  • Funds will be released in stages, and only after the applicant reports on the completed stage

  • If a stage is not completed, or the set objectives are not achieved, funds will no longer be released

    1. Launch an aggressive marketing campaign, all actions and expenditures of which will be published as NFT news in CRC DAO

Examples of how the application and approval process will work (in simple terms)

  • A video content creator who already has a channel and several videos about Cosmos Hub with a couple hundred views each applies to CRC DAO and requests $12,000 to create new content and develop the channel

  • CRC DAO participants review the application, check the channel and content quality, and familiarize themselves with the stated objectives and metrics to assess how well the objectives have been achieved

  • In any unclear or ambiguous situations, CRC DAO participants vote against approving the application on the grounds that the application is incomplete or ambiguous. They then contact the applicant and ask them to clarify, revise, remove, or add something to the application. They then ask them to submit a new application with the changes made

  • The new application will require less time for review, after which a vote is taken on the application, and an NFT document is issued indicating the specific objectives. Based on the criteria, a participant voted FOR or AGAINST

  • If the application is approved, the applicant will receive a portion of the requested funds: 1,000 out of 12,000

  • For example, the applicant indicated that they plan to release 48 videos in one year, one per week, and increase the number of views per video from 300 to 1,500

  • When the applicant returns a month later for the next portion of the funds, the CRC DAO participants review the quality of the work done. If the applicant has released four new videos in the past month, each with 400 views instead of 300, then the applicant is on track with the stated development plan and will receive the next 1,000. CRC DAO participants will issue an on-chain NFT document stating the reasons for distributing the next tranche of funds

  • If the applicant does not provide the results of the work performed, the next tranche of funds will not be issued, and CRC DAO participants will issue an on-chain NFT document stating the reasons why the applicant did not receive the next tranche of funds

  • If the results are there, but fall short of the stated metrics, SubDAO participants may issue a smaller amount of funds in the expectation that the applicant will catch up to the stated metrics in the near future. However, in this case, CRC DAO participants will still be required to issue an on-chain NFT document stating the reasons why the applicant did not receive the next tranche of funds in full

  • If If the results exceed expectations, the applicant may receive additional bonus payments. However, in this case, CRC DAO participants will be required to issue an on-chain NFT document stating the reasons for the increased payment

This description is a simplification of the application submission and review process. In reality, a wide range of parameters and characteristics will be taken into account when reviewing the application and making subsequent payments, the most important of which will be the immediate benefit to the long-term development of the Cosmos Hub and the community

The situation right now

  • Cosmos Hub has a Community Pool, the funds of which are barely used

  • Most proposals to allocate funds from the Community Pool do not pass, and the process of launching proposals for allocating funds from the Community Pool is too long, labor-intensive, and even risky, especially when it comes to small amounts

  • Enthusiasts and developers who have long been creating content, growing communities, and building digital tools did not receive support from Cosmos, and either stopped their activities or moved to other projects

  • Projects launched on ICS did not receive support from Cosmos and moved to their own networks, or are preparing to move from Cosmos SDK to Base and other EVM projects

  • Development of the EVM-in-Cosmos direction has been paused

  • Financial support for ICS development has been paused

  • AADAO’s activity has stopped and has been discredited by corruption scandals and irrational spending on management

How it should be

  • Funds from the Community Pool should be used to develop Cosmos Hub

  • The procedure for requesting funds from the Community Pool should be simple and low-risk, especially for small requests

  • Enthusiasts and developers should be motivated to keep contributing to Cosmos Hub, and Cosmos should become an attractive place for enthusiasts and developers from other projects

  • Projects launching on ICS should receive support from Cosmos Hub, and projects already on other networks should understand the benefits of moving to ICS

  • EVM integration into Cosmos should be completed

  • Funding for ICS development should continue

  • Cosmos Hub should have its own DAO that supports enthusiasts, developers, the community, and projects, operates transparently, and whose management inspires confidence

Target audience

A huge number of enthusiasts, validators, developers, and creators contribute to Cosmos Hub every day, directly or indirectly

They produce video content, host meetings both online and in-person, develop digital tools, create written and video guides, grow local communities, and provide public infrastructure

FAQ

How is the new DAO supposed to be better? How is it fundamentally different from AADAO?

What was wrong with AADAO (briefly and to the point)

  1. Over-management and opaque spending • Most of the budget went to “coordination,” “strategy,” and internal management • Reporting was vague, it was unclear who was doing what and why it cost so much money • The community regularly asked: “Where’s the impact?”

  2. Low efficiency and minimal results • Despite the huge budget, it was difficult to see any real impact on Cosmos • Few specific metrics, making it nearly impossible to assess success • It felt like an institution for the sake of an institution

  3. Lack of a transparent application selection procedure • Criteria were unclear • Decisions were perceived as behind-the-scenes • It seemed like money was being allocated to “insiders”

  4. Weak feedback and minimal oversight • Once funds were allocated, there was almost no oversight • Many grants failed to produce tangible results, but funding continued • There was no strict “if you didn’t do it, you don’t get it anymore” mechanism

  5. Reputational scandals • Rumors of embezzlement swirled around AADAO - inflated salaries, weak audits, lack of explanations • This discredited the very idea of a DAO for Cosmos

  6. Lack of an on-chain trace of decisions • Votes, reports, explanations of positions - everything happened in Off-chain • The community couldn’t transparently track the process

How the new CRC DAO should be better (in brief)

  • Full on-chain transparency – all decisions, explanations, and reports are published on-chain (NFT reports)

  • Funding is staged – funds are released only after each stage is completed

  • Clear application criteria – if an application is unclear, it is automatically rejected

  • Minimal management costs – management costs are capped at ≤5%

  • Public participants – people who have a reputation for their work

  • Clear KPIs and measurable results – each case is assessed against pre-defined metrics

Who will create marketing requests?

The CRC itself will create advertising requests on CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko. These requests will contain a full description of advertising costs

Who will initially serve on the Cosmos Resurrection Committee?

The Committee will include public participants of the following validators:

  • Cosmostation

  • P2P validator

  • POSTHUMAN

  • Polkachu

  • Stake Labs

  • Lavender.five

  • Bro-n-Bro validator

It is possible that some of the above representatives will transfer their seats to public representatives of other Cosmos Hub validators

The main idea is for the Committee to be comprised of people who are directly interested in the growth of ATOM, whose interests are inextricably linked to the growth of ATOM

1 Like
2

No, thanks.

If ICL is to do marketing - they should just hire professionals for their marketing department. Not being a marketing professional, people like you can do more harm than good to the public image of Cosmos.

Grant system is already scheduled as AAADAO, which will be led by ICL, so it seems you just want to frontrun it and gain some power before it happens by including yourself into your version of it.

Also, what’s with bribing of validators with “1 million ATOMs will be delegated to validators who vote in favor of allocating 2 million ATOMs for the CRC”?

Not to mention that you will be creating more sell pressure for ATOM by funding proposals with questionable outcomes.

4 Likes
3

I don’t think Cosmos needs aggressive marketing right now. We can spend millions on campaigns, but it won’t change anything if the Hub itself doesn’t showcase real applications, real products, and visible innovation.

What the ecosystem truly needs is:

  • More products built directly on the Hub, creating organic demand for ATOM.
  • Proactive builders, supported through a clear, efficient, and responsive process.
  • An engaged community that naturally amplifies progress because there’s something tangible to talk about.
  • A more active and effective ICF + CL, providing coherent vision and real FAST support to high-potential initiatives.

Once the economic activity is there, new modules, dApps, interchain integrations, real use cases, the marketing happens on its own. Builders, users, and investors become the ecosystem’s best promoters.

You don’t fix a traction problem with ads.

You fix it with products.

6 Likes
4

I oppose this proposal.

  1. If marketing is needed, it should be done by professional teams.

    I’ve watched some of your videos — they look amateur and careless.

  2. “1 million ATOMs will be delegated to validators who vote in favor of allocating 2 million ATOMs for the CRC. All rewards will be redelegated to validators to increase the CRC’s Voting Power.”

    I am strongly against this.

    This is essentially bribing validators, and such behavior should never appear in a governance proposal.

6 Likes
5

We can debate whether the strategic direction taken by Cosmos Labs is the right one, but at the very least they’re making an effort to bring real users, real products, and real revenue streams into the Hub. That’s ultimately what strengthens an ecosystem over time. And what will help the price of Atom.

By contrast, the type of marketing suggested here doesn’t create any lasting value. It might draw in a wave of short-term speculators (if it draws anyone at all) but it won’t attract genuine customers, real projects, or meaningful activity that benefits the Hub in a sustainable way. Without those fundamentals, no amount of hype will move the ecosystem forward.

5 Likes
6

Similar position here.

None of the proposed actions is likely to have the intended effects because as pointed out above, marketing can’t be improvised and should be conducted by specialists within a comprehensive strategy.
Multiple independent initiatives will end up blurring the overall communication and harming each other.

The quid pro quo offer is a nice touch.

3 Likes
7

Easy No with Veto.

Bribe / grift proposal.

3 Likes
8

Instant no with VETO. Cosmos is quite alive thank you, hard pass on your arbitrary committee.

3 Likes
9

Another “masterful” proposal from the Posthuman validator. Let’s try to break down what it actually means.

  1. The entire proposal reads like something written by a child. It contains no clearly defined strategy, only accusations and a highly questionable plan that is simply not viable. There is no value in such advertising — it will not make users buy $ATOM. For anyone to buy anything, there must first be a real product, not an abstract idea that people in the crypto space may or may not agree with. Your proposal does not mention products at all.

  2. Your financial competence is questionable. The last time you requested money for your private event, we already discovered that you had issues with basic math (incorrect conversions and expense calculations). Since then, you have not provided any receipts to support your claims, and you turned the people who wrote to you privately at your request into a circus show about anonymity. Given all of this, should the community truly believe that you are competent in managing funds? I believe the answer is no.

  3. The last time you asked for money, you also stated that if you did not receive it, you would leave Cosmos and move to other ecosystems. A significant amount of time has passed, and you seemingly still have not received the funds. So the question is: were you simply bluffing, or do you now understand that outside Cosmos, no one really needs you, and therefore you are trying to extract as much money as possible while you still can?

  4. Regarding the products you have been talking about for so long — none of them are functional or in demand. Where is the satellite you keep mentioning? Why does the Centrifuge — or whatever this low-quality copy is called — still not work properly and is constantly bugged? You have shown no competence in executing your own ambitions or building usable products. And now you are claiming the right to manage a very large amount of money. Is this justified? In my view, absolutely not.

  5. Your comparison of Ethereum’s price history with that of ATOM makes no sense. The market and the number of players have changed drastically since then, and today there are simply no projects capable of replicating Ethereum’s trajectory. If you believe such a comparison is even remotely reasonable, then I think you should reconsider your place in crypto, as this raises even more questions about your competence. Why not compare it to Bitcoin while you’re at it?

  6. Your proposal regarding content creators reflects a naïve understanding of how social media works. No blogger will guarantee view growth simply because they received funding. High-quality content ≠ views. Many creators spend significant resources producing great content yet remain unnoticed for long periods due to narrative mismatches or algorithmic limitations. Especially in the current market stage, view counts are declining for anyone producing crypto-related content. People are tired and capitulating. If you do not understand this, either study the topic more thoroughly or stop suggesting ideas that are disconnected from reality.

In conclusion, the entire proposal looks like an attempt to obtain funding without any guarantees that, given Vladimir’s level of competence, the money will not simply disappear.

PS. Some validators you mentioned already confirmed that they are not a part of it, so can you please tell us what kind of the game you playing here?

3 Likes
10

It should go without saying, but we do not support this proposal.

The community pool should not be used for untargeted, wasteful marketing spends that bleed ATOM out to small content creators several thousands of dollars at a time. The same value could fund far more impactful, targeted marketing spends for potentially years with professional marketing firms. It could even get ATOM a superbowl ad slot (not saying we should use the funds for this, but it gives you an idea of the scale of the ask here).

The community pool being difficult to access is a feature, not a bug. The community is justified in looking at spends like this with caution and suspicion. We’ve seen too much value leakage from the Community pool as it is. Some things I do think would be interesting to see from the CP are:

  • Yield generation: Use the CP to earn yield, which can be used to diversify CP holdings and remove ATOM from active circulation via buybacks or DeFi fees.

  • Delegation matching for enterprise customers of the stack that choose to buy ATOM and create their own validators

  • Any other initiatives that help us onboard enterprises to Cosmos.

All of these have the potential to drive 100x the value of the spend and, most importantly, don’t actually deplete the CP. Instead, these types of initiatives can put the community pool ATOM to work in ways that drive 100x the value that they cost, or more.

Regarding this:

This is obviously not ok. It’s my personal opinion that more aggressive steps should have been taken to prevent this type of bribery with prop 82, and I would be an advocate for taking such steps to prevent bribery in this case.

For example, if we view this bribery as having an impact on swaying certain validators’ votes, it’s my opinion that the ICF should blacklist those validators (along with Posthuman validator for proposing this) from the ICF delegation program. As the delegation program manager on the Labs side, this would be the recommendation I make to the ICF.

11 Likes
11

Stakecito does NOT endorse this proposal and did not approve being listed here. We have contacted the author and requested removal.

4 Likes
12

Clown proposal. NWV.

13

When if not now? Do you want to see $ATOM by 2, then by 1,5m then by 1 ?

14

I romoved StakeCito from the list

15

As you can see, nothing help
To attract real users, you need good price

You will never attract nobody with constantly falling down in price ATOM

16

We have a lot of products, but nobody nows about them

Without marketing we will only lose users

Price of ATOM is constantly going down, real projects leave the Cosmos, if we will not spend funds on Marketing - we will lose Cosmos

17

Sorry, but I don’t think that Cosmos Labs can do something good for Cosmos

18

We understand why projects leave, and it’s not the projects’ fault

Cosmos Labs is guilty for the exodus of projects from the Cosmos Ecosystem

Over the course of its first year of existence, speaking on behalf of Cosmos, Cosmos Labs told a ton of projects that we now have social-darwinism, and the strongest will survive, and that other projects will receive no support from Cosmos

Not only is this all nonsense, coz those who unite best will survive, as mutual aid is the most important factor in evolution. And so we see how weak humans, uniting with horses and dogs, have wiped out the strong mammoths from the evolutionary race

The most important point is that Cosmos Labs is not the entire Cosmos

Starting with the fact that Cosmos Labs’ Voting Power is definitely less than Cosmostation, continuing with the fact that ICF failed to prevent the passage of a proposal about the community’s lack of trust in ICF

After this, ICF allocated 20 million from its funds and handed it over to Skip Protocol (which became Cosmos Labs)

This raises two important points:

  1. If the community doesn’t trust ICF, then why do we trust Cosmos Labs (an ICF protégé)?

Cosmos Labs is the same ICF, just from a different perspective

  1. Cosmos Labs’ Voting Power is even lower than ICF’s, as ICF long ago lost most of its ATOMs, and as a result, they were unable to counter the proposal about ICF’s lack of trust. And Cosmos Labs doesn’t spend ICF funds on increasing its Voting Power.

That is, Cosmos Labs cannot represent Cosmos’ position; it can only speak for itself.

The problem is that other projects believe Cosmos Labs is the “leader of Cosmos,” and whatever Magmar says is taken as the position of the entire Cosmos Hub

No one would be against good leaders, but since the ICF declared Cosmos Labs the “leader of Cosmos,” ATOM has been 3-4 times smaller

The best thing Cosmos Labs has come up with is convincing institutions to launch private blockchains on the Cosmos SDK. And Cosmos Labs’ role in this is to explain to institutions how to use the Cosmos SDK, which is, roughly speaking, created at the expense of ATOM holders (if anyone doesn’t understand how this is connected, we can explain it)

And there’s nothing wrong with explaining to people how to launch blockchains on the Cosmos SDK. The Validator School has been doing this for three years…

It’s just not clear what benefit this will bring to ATOM holders…

Cosmos Labs will gain fame and recognition, and maybe even get paid. But it won’t be Cosmos Hub that gets paid, it will be Cosmos Labs!

Even if Cosmos Hub gets paid, for it to be beneficial for ATOM holders, they’d have to pay a lot, and pay regularly

Currently, a total of 272 million ATOMs are staked:

So, if institutions pay $272 million for an explanation of how to launch a blockchain using the free, open-source Cosmos SDK, each ATOM holder will receive $1 for each ATOM they stake. But it’s a one-time payment. And who would pay that kind of money for training that costs $300 per person, especially on a regular basis, is simply impossible to imagine

In addition, hundreds of blockchains have already been launched on the Cosmos SDK, and among them are a ton of successful blockchains:

Binance, Cronos, Injective, Noble - but this simply doesn’t affect the price of ATOM

And if any bank or payment system launches a blockchain on the Cosmos SDK, it won’t affect the price of ATOM

Basically, the gist of the complaint is this:

- ICF, which the community doesn’t trust, declares that Cosmos Labs is now the “leader of Cosmos,” and ICF is washing its hands of it.

- Everyone hopes and expects Cosmos Labs (as true leaders) to lead Cosmos to a bright future.

- If ICF was simply cutting budgets, but at least doing something useful, then Cosmos Labs only made things worse: they stopped EVM implementation, froze payments for ISC development, promoted separatism and social Darwinism, thereby triggering a wave of Cosmos project exits, and generally tarnished Cosmos’s reputation.

For conspiracy theorists:

Cosmos Labs is Jae Kwon project to get everyone to turn away from Cosmos Hub and switch to Atom One :sweat_smile:

And it would be funny if it weren’t so sad…

While communicating with the ICF was nearly impossible - they simply ignored any requests that weren’t in their best interests. They didn’t take on the role of Cosmos’s leaders, simply being “one of the foundations that helps development”

While communicating with Jae Kwon and Atom One is easy, and they’re very approachable, which draws attention to Atom One, communicating with Cosmos Labs is a pain

We’ve yet to meet anyone who said they enjoyed communicating with Cosmos Labs

Everyone I spoke with said that communicating with Cosmos Labs is difficult, that they’re aggressive, and that they act arrogant

We can confirm: Cosmos Labs has surprisingly low soft skills. All our attempts to make friendship and develop Cosmos together were met with callous negativity

It feels like these people don’t understand friendship, cooperation, or mutual assistance… They’re not responsible. It’s best not to take their word for it; they don’t keep it

What can we take away from this?

  1. Stop thinking that Cosmos is crap just because Cosmos Labs claims to be a leader.

Cosmos ≠ Cosmos Labs

If you don’t like Cosmos Labs, that doesn’t mean Cosmos is crap

And the fact that you don’t like Cosmos Labs is a completely natural reaction of a healthy person; you’re not alone; almost everyone feels the same way. The only people who won’t tell you Cosmos Labs is crap are the people who receive funds directly from Cosmos Labs, and there aren’t many of them

  1. Stop believing that Cosmos Labs are some kind of leaders who want to make Cosmos Hub better

Cosmos Labs’ opinion ≠ Cosmos’ opinion.

They don’t take any actions in the interests of Cosmos Hub or ATOM holders

They pursue the interests of their small, centralized group, and what they say on behalf of Cosmos is a ridiculous mistake.

  1. Stop thinking that Cosmos is unsaveable. Cosmos has every chance of success if we stop believing in the previous two points and take on the development of Cosmos, ignoring the existence of Cosmos Labs.

Or at least delegate this responsibility to those who want to develop Cosmos

19

Everstake will not be supporting this proposal. We have never granted any consent to be included in the proposed Committee, and we do not wish to be associated with the structure, messaging, or direction outlined here. Please remove Everstake from the list immediately.

2 Likes
20

I’m hearing these clowns invited a bunch of validators to a Telegram chat for this, then went ahead and assumed they were on board with this idiocy just because they joined the chat. Can you confirm?