# Make ATOM great again **URL:** \ **Category:** Hub Proposals\ **Created:** [August 15, 2024, 3:58am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/make-atom-great-again/14271 "2024-08-15T03:58:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![FHZ](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/fhz/32/7351_2.png) [@FHZ](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/FHZ)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2024, 3:09am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/make-atom-great-again/14271/4 "2024-08-16T03:09:28Z")
Hello, MCGA. Firstly want to applaud the enthusiasm, as I mirror the energy. 1. If the result of inflation being lowered to 10%, via “The ATOM halving” ([prop#848](https://www.mintscan.io/cosmos/proposals/848/)), hasn’t help push user adoption, why would 2-4%? If it hasn’t been implemented already, why not completely remove the 7% minimum bound and have the CP tax increased? By _Transitioning_ to 10%, we’ve seen: • 2.0’s trojan horse advance and achieve _Steady_ governance takeover • ATOM’s stashed into separate, **centralized treasury pools** _outside_ the Cosmos Hub • increased control through leverage, such as through (risky/unproven) liquid staking 2. Lowering block times sound great 3. Why can’t Permissionless CosmWasm exist and fully thrive outside the hub as an **ICS** chain? Not only would this continue to help promote **ICS** as a Cosmos Hub product, it would achieve the broader, collective mission to onboard users, maintain the integrity of the Cosmos Hub, all the while naturally accrue value back to ATOM. Though the intention sounds great, this unfortunately sounds like _yet another_ sly pivot to take from the staking incentive (earning transaction fee’s + rewards) to benefit the select few, ultimately making a mockery of the Cosmos Hub governance system. Please help me understand, if i’m wrong. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/make-atom-great-again/14271)._