# Hub Weekly Update #19: October 8, 2026 **URL:** \ **Category:** Hub Unit\ **Created:** [October 8, 2026, 6:30pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/hub-weekly-update-19-october-8-2026/17420 "2026-10-08T18:30:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RoboMcGobo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/robomcgobo/32/5444_2.png) [@RoboMcGobo](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/RoboMcGobo)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2026, 6:30pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/hub-weekly-update-19-october-8-2026/17420/1 "2026-10-08T18:30:50Z")
![hub-weekly-19-landscape](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/uploads/cosmos1/original/2X/f/ffd926f6aef87d38819a567d21efe9a4ecb1fc8a.jpeg) This is the nineteenth Hub Weekly Thursday recap, straight from the Hub Unit team, per the cadence we committed to in the[From Chaos to Stability to Growth](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/from-chaos-to-stability-to-growth-the-plan-to-build-the-cosmos-hub-roadmap-in-public/) post. Every Thursday, we will call out significant Cosmos Hub updates on the forum, with a short companion thread on X, recapping announcements, live events like validator or community calls, and ecosystem updates! For more info, see the linked posts, and contact[@RoboMcGobo](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/robomcgobo) on Telegram to submit news for the weekly. **This week: the Neutron recovery proposal is on-chain and needs votes before Monday; 555,400 ATOM from the AADAO liquidity position is back in the Community Pool with a write-up on what the process taught us, a status check on the USDC migration to Injective by chain, and what we are stress-testing in the tokenomics work before the wrap-up goes out.** - **Neutron recovery** :[Proposal 1058](https://www.mintscan.io/cosmos/proposals/1058) is in its voting period until Monday, October 12. Participation is short of quorum; please vote! - **AADAO LP return** : the 555,400 ATOM allocated to AADAO in 2023, plus accrued staking yield, has been returned to the Community Pool, and the forum write-up covers why it took the AADAO eighteen months to accomplish and what future Community Pool mandates should require - **USDC migration** : about $6 million migrated in the first week of the Osmosis transmuter pool and about $10.5 million USDC.inj now in circulation; Terra is about 62 percent migrated and the Hub about 27 percent; dYdX holds about 72 percent of the remaining USDC.n and starts its migration in mid-October; and the Hub community pool’s USDC is proposed next - **Tokenomics** : the wrap-up post and the dashboard are in final review, and the work in front of them is stress-testing whether exchanges, custodians, and other sophisticated parties could game the proposed mechanisms * * * ## **Neutron Recovery: Proposal 1058 Is On-Chain, Voting Closes Monday, and the Hub Needs More Votes to Reach Quorum** The recovery plan has moved from forum discussion to an on-chain vote.[Proposal 1058](https://www.mintscan.io/cosmos/proposals/1058) entered its voting period on Monday, October 5, and voting closes on **Monday, October 12 at 11:58 UTC (7:58 AM ET)**. A quick recap of what it does. It is a text proposal: it executes no messages, spends nothing from the Community Pool, and changes no Hub parameter. If it passes, the Hub authorizes the six signers of the Hub recovery multisig to send the 1,227,121 ATOM recovered after the Neutron governance exploit, less network fees, over IBC to the Neutron recovery multisig. A subsequent Neutron governance proposal then returns all recovered funds to the original Drop and Astroport contracts, so that affected users withdraw through the interfaces they used before. The full accounting, destination addresses, and process are in the[forum discussion thread](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/discussion-move-the-1-227-121-atom-recovered-after-the-neutron-exploit-to-the-neutron-recovery-multisig/17385) and in the proposal text itself. **The vote is still short on participation.** As of this morning, the votes cast are over 99 percent Yes among non-abstaining votes, with a small amount of No and almost no NoWithVeto. Turnout, however, is below the Hub’s 40 percent quorum. A proposal that does not reach quorum fails regardless of how the cast votes are split. The multisig signers committed to moving the funds only on a mandate from Hub governance. The mandate is what this vote decides. If you hold or delegate ATOM, your vote counts toward quorum regardless of how you vote. How you can help: - **Validators:** if you have not voted on Proposal 1058, please vote before Monday morning. The active set is the fastest path to quorum, and a validator vote carries all delegated stake that has not voted independently - **Delegators:** check whether your validator has voted. If they have not, vote directly. Keplr and Mintscan both support voting on Hub proposals from a connected wallet - **Voters with questions:** the[discussion thread](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/discussion-move-the-1-227-121-atom-recovered-after-the-neutron-exploit-to-the-neutron-recovery-multisig/17385) is still live for questions about the destination, the accounting, or the process, and the Hub-side[response and recovery recap](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/neutron-governance-attack-cosmos-hub-response-and-recovery-update/17369) covers how the funds came to be in the multisig in the first place * * * ## **AADAO LP Return: 555,400 ATOM Is Back in the Community Pool, and the Write-Up Covers What Future Mandates Should Require** On September 10, 555,400 ATOM was deposited into the Cosmos Hub Community Pool, completing the return of the liquidity position that[Proposal 800](https://www.mintscan.io/cosmos/proposals/800) allocated to AADAO in June 2023. That figure is the original 450,000 ATOM plus roughly 105,000 ATOM of stATOM staking yield accrued over the life of the position. The assets came back in full. The full write-up is on the forum this week:[Return of AADAO ATOM LP to Cosmos Hub Community Pool](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/return-of-aadao-atom-lp-to-cosmos-hub-community-pool/17419). The following pain points around the recovery are helpful instructions on how to better structure community pool asks in the future: - **No offboarding mechanism.** When AADAO’s mandate was not renewed, nothing in the original proposal or any of the five that followed assigned responsibility for returning the assets, set a deadline, or named a fallback if the custodian could not execute - **Fragmented governance instructions.** Proposals 800, 805, 823, 880, 950, and 955 each touched the same position without consistently stating whether they superseded, modified, or confirmed the prior instruction, which left real uncertainty about the authorized destination of the funds. That dispute was ultimately resolved through an AADAO-side vote in favor of the Community Pool - **Custody depended on former personnel.** The position sat in a four-of-seven multisig whose signers had all left AADAO by 2025. Institutional records were lost along the way, and the wallet structure, signers, and key ownership had to be reconstructed from archived materials before anything could be signed The write-up’s central point is that governance approval does not by itself guarantee accountability or execution, and it proposes four minimum controls for any future Community Pool mandate that involves custody: mandatory offboarding provisions, a clear governance hierarchy, documented custody and succession, and continuing obligations on signers to cooperate with required transfers once a mandate ends. Thank you to AADAO Oversight for carrying the coordination over eighteen months, to the former signers who showed up for repeated signing rounds, and to the Cosmos Labs and Cosmos Labs Korea engineers who supported the technical execution. * * * ## **USDC Migration: Osmosis Liquidity Is Moving, dYdX Holds Most of What Remains and Starts Later This Month, and the Hub Community Pool Is Next** Noble USDC (USDC.n) winds down on January 12, 2027, and the ecosystem is migrating to Injective USDC (USDC.inj) ahead of that date. We have been posting a migration reminder on[@cosmoshub](https://x.com/cosmoshub) every Tuesday and a supply roundup every Friday, and this is the first time the Weekly has pulled the picture together by chain. **Where the migration stands.** The biggest change over the past two weeks is Osmosis. With the Osmosis transmuter pool live, USDC.n converts to USDC.inj one-to-one with no fee, and we are running an arbitrage bot to keep the pool’s USDC.inj side topped up as it drains. Osmosis liquidity has started moving in earnest as a result: the largest pools, including the BTC, ATOM, and stablecoin pairs, now show more volume in USDC.inj than in USDC.n, which matters because yield follows volume and liquidity follows yield. In the week after the pool went live, roughly $6 million of USDC migrated across the ecosystem, and about $10.5 million USDC.inj is now in circulation on Injective. The pace has held this week: the arbitrage bot alone converted about $290,000 of USDC.n today before hitting its daily rate limit. **A one-click migration flow is being integrated into Skip:Go so that the two-step path for larger transfers collapses into a single transaction** Today, a larger USDC.n transfer that does not route through the Osmosis pool takes two separate transactions: one to move the USDC to Injective, and one to bring the USDC.inj back to the chain it started on. The one-click flow combines those into a single signature from the source chain. For protocols and chains, that changes what they can offer their users. A frontend can embed a migrate button through the Skip API that converts USDC.n to USDC.inj in place, without the user leaving the app. A DAO or treasury can migrate a balance from a multisig in one transaction. A chain holding a large USDC.n balance can run its migration as a single-step flow instead of walking every user through two. dYdX’s migration and the Hub Community Pool’s are both sequenced behind it. Migrated share by chain, measured as USDC.inj held on the chain as a share of all USDC held there, as of Tuesday: - **Terra:** about 62 percent migrated, the furthest along of any chain with a meaningful balance - **Cosmos Hub:** about 27 percent migrated. Hub users on Keplr and Skip:Go have had the migration path since launch, and the remaining balance includes the Community Pool’s own USDC, covered below - **Osmosis:** about 15 percent migrated by on-chain balance, with the pool-level picture ahead of that number because liquidity is moving pool by pool - **dYdX:** effectively 0 percent for now. About 72 percent of all remaining USDC.n sits on dYdX, and dYdX has not started its migration yet. That is by design: dYdX will add USDC.inj as a supported collateral asset through its own governance soon. The dYdX process is planned to begin in mid-October, which means the bulk of the remaining USDC.n is expected to move in late October and November. - **Initia, Dymension, ZIGChain, Agoric, and Babylon** are locking in migration dates and support now. All are expected to migrate well-before the January 12 wind down date. **One caveat. These are point-in-time balances from public chain endpoints, and they move daily.** The Friday roundup on[@cosmoshub](https://x.com/cosmoshub) is the running record, and we will revisit the by-chain view in the Weekly as the larger migrations kick off. **The Hub Community Pool is proposed to migrate next.** The Community Pool holds USDC.n of its own, and the current plan (to be approved by governance) is to migrate it once the one-click flow goes live. The proposed path is a community pool spend proposal that moves the Community Pool’s USDC.n to a multisig of community members, which migrates it to USDC.inj over Skip:Go and returns it to the Community Pool. A candidate signer set is being assembled now, and the proposal will come to the forum for discussion once it is in place. Nothing moves without a Hub governance vote, and the signer set, destination, and process are all open to input in that thread. How you can help: - **Migrate your own USDC.n.** The[migration guide](https://docs.skip.build/go/app/usdc-n-manual-migration) covers the Skip:Go flow, and the Osmosis transmuter pool handles most sizes with a one-to-one swap - **If you run a chain or protocol holding USDC.n** and have not spoken to us about a migration plan, contact us. * * * ## **Tokenomics: The Wrap-Up Is in Final Review, and the Current Work Is Stress-Testing Whether the Proposed Mechanisms Can Be Gamed** A status note on the ATOM tokenomics research with Gauntlet, and a look at what we are working through before everything is shared in full. The wrap-up post that lays out every issue the Phase 1 and Phase 2 research surfaced, attaches Gauntlet’s full report, and sets out the sequence for addressing them is written and in final internal review, including a pass with the Cosmos Labs Korea engineering team on what each change would involve to implement. The ATOM tokenomics dashboard that goes public with it is on the same track: the methodology has been reviewed and the remaining work is hosting. **What we are working on right now is adversarial review.** Gauntlet’s recommendations include mechanisms that propose changes to who earns what from staking, and a mechanism that rewards one kind of behavior is also an invitation to game that behavior. Before any of it goes to the forum as a proposal, we are evaluating how the most sophisticated parties on the Hub could game it: - **Centralized exchanges and custodians** , which stake on behalf of many users and can pool, lock, and rehypothecate positions at a scale no individual holder can, while offering their own users liquidity off-chain - **Large validators and delegators** , who can split or rotate stake across accounts to qualify for rewards - **Liquid staking providers** , whose tokens can turn a long-term commitment on-chain into a position that is fully liquid For each one, the question is the same: does the mechanism still produce the outcome it was designed for when the biggest participants optimize against it, and if not, what has to change in the design or the eligibility rules? The same review covers the other open design questions from Phase 2: how product revenue should drive utility for ATOM, with several routes under evaluation rather than a single preferred answer, and how the treasury component should be funded and governed so that control sits with Hub governance and nowhere else. The structure of what follows the post has not changed. Each issue the research surfaced will be handled as its own proposal, on its own timeline, with a structured discussion window on the forum before anything goes on-chain, rather than bundled into one vote. * * * That’s all for this week - thanks to everyone engaging across the forum, validator channels, and Telegram. Looking forward to next week’s update! Please let us know if you like the Weekly format, and what else you’d like to hear from us. - [Follow the Hub on X for updates](https://x.com/cosmoshub) - Join the monthly validator call: Wednesday, October 14, 9:00 AM ET - Join the next community call, featuring the ICF Q&A: Thursday, October 15, 10:00 AM ET. Register for the community calendar[here](https://calendar.google.com/calendar/u/0?cid=Y19iNmMwZWJjOGNlYWMzNzFmMTFmOTQ3NDEwODFkY2IwNzhlOGVmOTVhODk1MTdlNjhhZGQyZTMyMzE0NTExNmNjQGdyb3VwLmNhbGVuZGFyLmdvb2dsZS5jb20) ---
**Author:** ![Wandering\_Cosmonaut](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/wandering_cosmonaut/32/9307_2.png) [@Wandering\_Cosmonaut](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/Wandering_Cosmonaut)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2026, 1:08am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/hub-weekly-update-19-october-8-2026/17420/2 "2026-10-09T01:08:07Z")
Hi @RoboMcGobo Thanks for the write-up! It is good to see that USDC.inj is slowly picking up and I certainly look forward to any upcoming discussions regarding tokenomics. It sounds like the current step is trying to hypothetically break the model gauntlet has proposed. Certainly the hub cannot have a Juno Whale situation where staking rewards are purely some function of wallet count + amount staked. While I understand the reasoning behind bundling everything behind one vote. Hypothetically though, let’s just suppose gauntlet proposed 4 items to change. So I presume there will then be 4 separate discussions and 4 props. But through discussions let’s say 3 pass and 1 fails. Will there be a situation where the rest of the model breaks because of this? If it is split like that, I think in the proposal things should be clearly marked with something like: A. Safe if executed alone / self contained B. Safe only if executed with X C. Unsafe if executed alone