Hub has flip flopped and doubled down on BS app chain garbage. All the EVM fake promises down the drain. All the actual products now thrown in the trash. This pathetic excuse of a blockchain has nothing to offer. Rage quit has loaded, going back to ETH where actual users and smart contracts exist.
1 Like
Copying my comment made in another post :
About Asteroid Protocol :
Went there and honestly it was a dead place. Sometimes there wasn’t a single mint or buy in like 2 weeks. I bought 2 NFTs there and regret it, they are unsellable and money is 100% lost. I saw zero activity, the only people minting I guess were creators minting other creators collection, or even their own collection to simulate activity. I think there is more volume in 1 day on Stargaze that they were in Asteroid in its total lifetime lol Just checked, the last buy (0,4 atom) on Asteroid was July 9 , 8 days ago… and the previous one before that was July the 1st. No one is using Asteroid, let’s be honest
My point is, just thinking that creating a new Marketplace is easy and will automatically bring people is false. We can say all we want about Stars price action, which is super bad and rekt every single person who ever invested in it , the Marketplace had and still have loyal users and activity. Just copying protocol and website doesn’t mean people on other platform will come. Starting a new platform from zero, with zero collection, zero NFTs, zero creator is actually super risky, there is nothing on it , confidence is low and people will prefer to stay where they are rather than taking the risk the mint on new platform, to make it work you need all the marketing that comes with it, and some form of hype.
TLDR : creating a copy of Stargaze on the Hub, doesn’t mean it will attract users.
1 Like
- Create a proposal to enable Permissionless CW ?
- Or not
0
voters
Apology accepted. The hub still has Cosmwasm and hopefully it won’t be going anywhere. It makes it even easier for Stargaze and other teams to have outposts on it.
1 Like
I was just listening the latest interview of @Mag by the DefiGeeks community, and I was happy to hear Magmar reiterating how important NFTs’ communities are for the whole ecosystem.
So many pleople don’t understand that the passionate users who reply to their tweets and watch their videos are NFT holders. NFTs do not need to x1000% to be considered and be important. NFTs can act as a binding agent, a fidelity badges, galvanizing and bringing people together rallying behind chains and projects.
Now, in regards to the deal with Stargaze, here’s the solution that I think could satisfy everyone:
1- The Stargaze team slightly lower their expectation on the proposal’s asking price. The fact that the price has fallen tenfold over the year in an endless fall should be taken into account and can be seen as a failure in some aspect. The revenue generated/burn obviously didn’t counter the selling pressure. There’s no reason for this detail to be completely ignored, and the Atom community shouldn’t bear full responsibility for it. A cut of around 30% on each part of the proposal should be considered; this reduces the acquisition from approximately 13 million to 9 million.
2- The Atom community and the ICL agree on a joint funding agreement of 30% for the ICL and 70% for ATOM, which is approximately $6.4 million for ATOM and $2.6 million for the ICL. In these terms, I believe the acquisition could take place.
Regarding the integration in itself :
- a Transmuter pool with zero slippage and zero fees to transfer Stars to Atom
- a Transmuter pool to transfer Stars into a stars.atom token
- Redeploying the entire application on the Hub and change the denom to atom for all collections still priced in stars
- Create a DAO for the governance of Stargaze using stars.atom tokens as shares.
The last point seems very important to me since Stargaze wants to maintain a certain level of sovereignty and autonomy. This new stars.atom token must have 0% inflation and only have governance purposes. The goal is for current validators, project leaders, community members and anyone with an interest in the governance of the platform to be able to participate.
Assuming that a large part of the current supply of stars will be transferred in atom, the total quantity of stars.atom should decrease drastically compared to the current stars supply, offering greater voting power for those who transfer in stars.atom. Without inflation and with only a governance purpose, this should allow to get rid of a large part of the farmers and bad actors who currently drain the token dry. Only truly committed people will choose to convert to stars.atom and without incentive and inflation, there will be nothing to farm. The platform can now live on without the burden of Stars price and maintaining the chain, they can just work towards improving the app without technica debt and security budget’ needs.
Is this something the ICL would consider ?
A lot has happened since this was first posted. I think it’s worth revisiting now with permissionless CW on the hub.
Stargaze seems to be the number one requested app by Mag