Ensuring fair competition for Lst providers on Atom Wars

The Atom Wars post signalled a desire to only launch with stAtom, So I am creating this post for 2 reasons, 1) to open community discussion around this matter and 2) to inform that a proposal will be going up if stAtom is chosen to be exclusive lst for atom wars.

I believe it to be important for the hub to foster healthy competition whilst avoiding concentred VP on stride’s chosen delegation. It may well seem logical for the hub to give exclusive rights to a consumer chain but is it good for decentralisation? I would also argue that by being a consumer chain means stride already has an advantage which they are completely in their right to use.

Ultimately all I am proposing is to allow the market to decide.


Cosmos ecosystem is still too small too overthink about leaders vs laggers. If we have a dominating player we as a community should double down on it rather than trying to play into “decentralisation” for the sake of pur own community.
Liquidity should not be separated among statom, stkatom and other liquid staking providers. Imo
Going with stride only is good at this very moment considering where we are as an ecosystem

1 Like

Thank you for your rely, I would tend to agree with you if we had native liquid staking, but it’s far better to hedge risk across multiple third party providers since we don’t have native liquid staking. I also do not particularly see how choosing one actually scales. It’s essential that we have more than one LST solution to create arb opportunities that ensure a robust defi environment. look at ethereum.