Make ATOM great again

[Guinch_Roze]

Personnellement je pense que ce peut etre simple.
ecrivons que le cosmos hub prenne en charge toutes les demandes de financement y compris celles des autres chaines cosmos contre, en retour, un fee (minime) sur les teansaction IBC de ces chaines. Dans ce cas, aucun couteau sous la gorge des autres chaines, gagnant gagnant pour tous. Alors le cosmos hub redevient le centre de la gouvernance et de financement de la pile cosmos plus large, Atom devient utile grace a la taxe IBC, l’inflation peut donc etre reduite.
Et donnons la possibilité aux chaines pss d’etre financées gratuitement en contre parti de leur adhesion a l’AEZ.

Qu’en dites vous ?

[WillB]

@Govmos

According to this mechanic, we would currently experience the “spring,” which is the culminating point of bearish sentiment, corresponding to the bottom of the structure. If we are correct, this is where the last transfer of value will happen before the structure reaches final completion as volume raises back up along with prices. This is the point of “maximum pain” inflicted on weak hands, so we are not surprised to see posts like yours mentioning the impending death of ATOM. We see quite the opposite.

At what price does this TA idea become invalidated ? Price is down a further 17% in 20 days.

Is there a price at which you admit you are wrong and that radical action is needed to adjust ATOM to what the market wants ? Thank you.

[MAGA]

There is no invalidation to the thesis, which is dogmatic and how you lose everything.

[BlocksUnited]

Great friggin reply.

[Victor118]

Hello, I don’t really agree with you but I like the initiative and the intention

First of all, lowering inflation by comparing the cosmos hub to Ethereum is a mistake in my opinion, Ethereum is much better established in the crypto universe, there is no doubt that it has a future, so it is not a problem for hodlers to stake it with a low yield

In addition, Ethereum’s staking ratio is barely 25%, the Cosmos Hub cannot accept to have such a low ratio

Concerning permissionless smart contracts, this is also a misunderstanding of what the Cosmos Hub is
The Cosmos Hub offers security and gets paid for it, we don’t want smart contracts on the Hub, we want blockchains secured by the Hub
The product of the HUB is its security
In my opinion, if Osmosis has not succeeded in creating a token allowing it to both secure its blockchain AND be the token of its DEX is that the Atom ICS is market fit and that we are only beginning to realize it

Atom will ensure the security of osmosis and the Osmo token can be optimized for its DEX

The cosmos hub therefore wants blockchains and not Smart contracts
This means that tools are needed to simplify as much as possible the development and deployment of blockchains secured by Atom (see PSS and Forge)
For permissionless smart contract Neutron already exists and 25% of the revenues go to atom stakers

Concerning the speed of the blocks, I would say ok but it is not essential, to share its security the cosmos hub does not need to be much more scalable

On the other hand, to create a network effect and make blockchains as composable as smart contract and as interdependent as possible from each other making it difficult for them to leave the ICS of the cosmos hub the Atomic IBC (via megablocks) seems to me a priority feature

In the end I have the impression that you want to change everything while the usefulness of atom’s security is only beginning to be felt and to be fully exploitable via PSS

I don’t think Atom is dead, I think it’s a sleeping giant starting to wake up

[GeneralCrypto]

I think we need to implement an ATOM token burn mechanic that leverages either participation in DeFi or the consumer chain model. Right now the only reason to get more ATOM is so that you can sell more ATOM. We need a reason to use ATOM or Cosmos Hub services that will reduce ATOM supply. That would be far better than just lowering inflation.

My Proposal- personally, I think most typical retail investors don’t understand the consumer chain model and why it’s bullish for ATOM. I think using consumer chain fees to buy and burn ATOM would be extremely bullish for ATOM price and discussion of the proposal would bring a LOT more attention to the consumer chain model, something desperately needed. I also don’t think consumer chain fees will make ATOM deflationary, but the closer we get the more bullish and hyped everyone will be to hold ATOM.

[GeneralCrypto]

To add to this, I would add a simple web page that always shows the amount of ATOM bought and burned with consumer chain fees. With just that by itself- every time we get a new consumer chain proposal people would actually care and talk about it.

[Victor118]

To me it’s seems a good idea
From one side inflation pay for validation/ delegation the other fees to burn Atom
And perhaps like it was proposed a few times ago keep Atom inflation at a constant rate

[MAGA]

(1) 10x too much ATOM is staked. The point is to lower the staking rate and incentivize ATOMs to chase yield. We want less ATOM staked, not more. ATOMs economic security is needlessly high. But even if you want to keep economic security the same, you could cut the staking rate in half and double the slashing rate. Also, it doesn’t matter if ATOM is secure, if it’s irrelevant.

(2) ATOM needs to change. As I said above, I used to think ATOM should be minimal and sell security. But we have to be open to changing our minds based on new information. ICS isn’t working for ATOM. The message from the market has been clear over the past 5 years; the formula for blockchain success is powerful blockchain+vibrant community.

@Victor118

I don’t think Atom is dead, I think it’s a sleeping giant starting to wake up

You have to make this measurable or it’s an empty claim, what is your thesis?

[vixcontango]

One of the inflation theories a couple of years ago was that min_inflation would be set to 0%, then as many chains launched on top of ICS, the fees would get distributed to stakers and then people would stake their ATOM past the 67% threshold for lowering inflation and be happy with the yield since ATOM investors are income investors, not growth investors. ATOM inflation would also go to zero and we would have a situation where ATOM price is not getting eroded by inflation while people get income from other sources (economic activity from consumer chains). But a proposal by @effort_capital (or his circle) to lower min_inflation to 0% was rejected early on this year so this 0-10% tokenomics design clearly wasn’t going to be a reality.

Now we are about 2 years after these discussions, what does the real world look like. ICS got 2 consumer chains and the validators of both are complaining that they are subsidizing them. IE not enough economic activity on them to pay the validators much less the stakers. Now we have PSS and it looks like we might get (at best) 20 chains using 20 validators (or 400 chain validators) which is roughly the equivalent of 2 full ICS chains (2 * 180 validators = 360). Basically PSS doubles the meagre ICS market. If you add ICS and PSS together, you get 800 chain-validators worth of economic activity. Out of 800 chain-validators running on top ATOM, the agreements are to collect 25% of the economics, so 25% * 800 = 200. Essentially, all this effort the past 2 years to implement ICS & PSS would result in doubling of revenue. In the real world, this is great work for 2 years but in blitzscaling tech world, people are expecting a lot more.

So if ICS doubled the size of ATOM’s economic activity, and you double the amount of ATOM via inflation every 5 years, then basically the price should be the same 5 years from now. And that’s what happened. ATOM was $5 five years ago. The amount of ATOM supply today is twice what it was in 2019. The economic activity of ATOM validators is twice and thus ATOM is still $5 and all of its excursions above $5 were really selling opportunities.

Anybody that got into ATOM above $5 is sitting on losses because they misunderstood or mismeasured the size of the ICS & PSS. And the biggest problem here really is that ICS & PSS can’t capture as customers the biggest Cosmos SDK chains because they need customized validators. If that could happen, ATOM would be $30-40. Initially people thought that this is exactly the market ICS & PSS would capture, but as we see today that is really not the case, as many of the best Cosmos SDK products have no plans to become consumer chains.

For the MAGA guy, I need to mention that there is no major L1 out there that is both a DEX and a security chain. Solana is a security chain and so is Ethereum. Neither SOL nor ETH has $100B market cap because they are DEXes. DEX tokens don’t have that big of a market cap to begin with. OSMO is what $300M token. If you add OSMO to ATOM and ATOM is $3 billion chain, you gain what? 10%. ATOM goes from $5 to $5.50 and then that gets whittled down by inflation in 1 year.

MAGA guy is asking for the devs to do a lot of work for a 10% gain that again only lasts for one year. Not big enough of a project so not gonna happen, duder.

As much as people hate ICS, it had better real upside (100% vs 10%) than making ATOM a DEX. Two years ago people thought ICS would be 10x product and everybody knew how big OSMO is. So ICS was clearly the better choice to funnel funds to.

[vixcontango]

I agree that 67% is too high. I think 50% is good enough of a threshold and 60% if you want to be super secure. 67% is really a theoretical high security threshold. Chains are pretty secure even with 30% staked. I don’t know of proof-of-stake chain with 30% staked to have been exploited.

[vixcontango]

Generally speaking, the only things to do here is for ATOM to make it look like Ethereum or Solana to capture 100% of the economics of smart contract ICS chains like Neutron. If Neutron is rust/web assembly, at some point there needs to be an EVM ICS chain (which is 90% of the smart contract market, EVMOS or its successor) and a MOVE ICS chain. All those should make their transactions payable in ATOM and they need to 100% revenue share with the Cosmos Hub.

Outside of that, I think the best bang for the buck without additional work here is fixing the inflation. At present the high 10% inflation gives a lot of income to Coinbase and the other big exchange validators, Jae Kwon and the Interchain Foundation. They are making this money at the expense of all the people who have bought ATOM over the past 2-3 years.

In this situation, ATOM’s governance capability are a hook with which people lose money - they keep thinking - “with governance things can change and can turnaround” and keep staying in the game while the big boyz are dumping like champs. Even at $1 ATOM, all these big boyz are making millions annually.

[Victor118]

@MAGA

(1) 10x too much ATOM is staked. The point is to lower the staking rate and incentivize ATOMs to chase yield. We want less ATOM staked, not more. ATOMs economic security is needlessly high. But even if you want to keep economic security the same, you could cut the staking rate in half and double the slashing rate. Also, it doesn’t matter if ATOM is secure, if it’s irrelevant.

I’m not agree, cosmos hub product is ICS if we want a good product cosmos hub need a high staking rate
PSS is not live yet, why do you want to kill it now ?

Osmosis , and perhaps noble will become PSS consumer chains, my thesis that it’s a good signal for market

[Govmos]

The Wyckoff accumulation pattern, as outlined in Mr. Wyckoff’s original work, does not correspond to a specific price tag, but rather involves a flat range structure with various chart techniques. The goal is to influence investors’ decisions. The critical requirements are those mentioned in the initial post, and ATOM meets these criteria. The Wyckoff accumulation pattern signifies a transfer of ownership. The pattern concludes when extreme sell pressure and psychological distress are reached, essentially building a long term bottom beyond which the recovery will be strong and durable.

The “Spring” phase is marked by a break in the pattern’s bottom range, approximately $5.6 for ATOM. If correctly executed, the Spring phase ends when market volumes return, and prices are predicted to rise again. This phase drains the remaining weak supply into stronger hands, setting the stage for a market reversal and renewed demand, which, due to limited supply, will cause prices to reverse. The Spring phase completion is confirmed by a bullish candle close recovering the support level of $5.6, followed by a retest to verify the end of phase C, in line with Wyckoff methodology.

The invalidation, could be considered by extending durably below the range, it is essentially time-based as phases are supposed to have some redundancy in their respective duration. According to this analysis, phase C should mature in the coming weeks, months eventually, but shouldn’t extend much further into next year. Finally another invalidation would occur if we fail to keep 5,6$ after terminating the spring. Once finished with the downward pressure, prices should never retrace down to the extreme lows we are experiencing now.

To conclude, it is essentially a game of patience and ownership instead of price speculation and fear mongering.