Meme coins are a proven low cost and high velocity method of onboarding new community members into a crypto economy, which is an area where Cosmos and Neutron ecosystems both need to continue to invest and make progress in 2024.
Towards addressing this need, we propose $3M of $NTRN liquidity be applied to support the $NEWT:$ATOM and $NEWT:$NTRN pools on Astroport, Kujira, and Osmosis, split ⅓ to each of the DEXs, which will aid the community in bootstrapping liquidity to enable growth and success of the $NEWT meme coin, which in turn will support community onboarding and growth goals.
We think the idea of bootstrapping community PoL for $NEWT makes sense for a few reasons:
DOGE is the OG meme coin, but there have been dozens of other meme coins since $DOGE that have flourished as well. BONK is now being integrated into a whole range of dApps within the Solana community, for example. Memes are a kind of Internet/community currency, it is real – years of evidence show this is true.
As we look to build out the Atom Economic Zone, it would be ideal to have a meme coin that sits at the intersection of both ATOM and Neutron communities to accelerate user onboarding and add cultural and liquidity depth to the ecosystem.
The new $NEWT meme coin that was born ~6 weeks ago has had its admin keys burned, so the supply is fixed at 21m coins, and thus it is a safe project for the community to pursue as a community meme coin. The meme is loved by the community and the term implies “neutral” or “neutron”, and many fun memes can be created with the pattern “new(t)” or “new-t”, which is a good play on words.
So far there is not yet a single meme coin in the Cosmos with adequate DEX liquidity to allow a $25k trade without serious slippage.
Following Neutron’s airdrop to community member wallets, the unclaimed portion of the airdrop was returned to $ATOM community pool, which is now valued at ~ $30-60M USD (depending upon Neutron price fluctuations), and a very small portion of this liquidity could be used to bootstrap DeFi liquidity for $NEWT, which would be more useful to the community then leaving it just sitting unutilized in the community pool.
There is an organic group of community members originating from ATOM, Neutron, Osmosis, Skip, and Kujira communities supporting the $NEWT project already with a Telegram group of more than 500 people,
Even after $NEWT has sold off a couple of times, a wide cross-section of community members who love this specific meme have shown willingness to support the project by buttressing price, adding liquidity, adding LP incentives, etc so it is proving to be an organic, resilient, bottoms-up, community-driven project which is the right formula for any successful meme coin.
Any $ATOM, $NTRN, or $NEWT deployed to the DEXs would be ATOM community owned POL, so the value of assets deployed would not at all be lost to the community, to the contrary, if the $NEWT project grows in value it could accrue new value to $ATOM community members as the deployed POL grows in value!
Moreover, if the community can stand-up a Top 10 Meme coin, this will lead to 1000s of new users coming into the ecosystem via Leap Wallet, Kepler Wallet, etc. to trade the new Meme coin, which is the community-spirited objective.
Deployment Mechanics: Since the Cosmos Hub does not yet have either Cosmwasm or an Allocator to deploy POL to different chains or LPs, we propose that a multisig with individual volunteers from Stride, Skip, Osmosis, Kujira, Neutron, and/or AADAO teams could custody the $3M of $NTRN POL and deploy it on Kujira, AstroPort, and Osmosis DEXs.
I don’t think that deploying $2m of NTRN liquidity on Osmosis and Kujira, without Osmosis or Kujira returning a sufficient value back to Neutron aligns with the conditions that the Cosmos Hub agreed to when the NTRN was sent to the Community pool.
Specifically I think building NTRN liquidity on other chains without them doing the same on Neutron is not cooperative and potentially actively harmful to Neutron’s positioning. If the proposal requested that Osmosis and Kujira each also put up POL to be deployed on Neutron within the AEZ, I think this would meet the conditions of being cooperative and positive sum (and not harmful to Neutron).
Also I’ll disclaim that I do hold some NEWT (<$400). That said. I’m not sure the Cosmos Hub should be taking on millions in exposure to memecoins. But since NEWT has been a catalyst for onboarding users to the AEZ and Cosmos, I think a smaller ask would be reasonable.
In general I think the Cosmos Hub should wield its POL strategically and not for free. It should seek to make revenue sharing agreements, receive payments and grow the AEZ with its resources.
and if you think of it, neutron community gave a gift of unclaimed airdrop to atom community. Now atom community is proposing to flow some value back to neutron community by supporting liquidity for a neutron-themed meme. Reciprocal gifts. Kinda nice alignment actually!
The AEZ onboarding benefit would be real.
And making the newt pools safer and less slippy, what an idea.
Various people will argue about what chain(s) add value to atom. Confusing chains with tokens is to reject the thesis that underpins ibc.
Atom should consider if it wants to support a meme coin in general then say yes to this prop because makes broad sense, if no then just say no.
I don’t know much about $NEWT, but many memecoins are very thinly traded and have holders who have way more than the liquidity that exists for the memecoin. This is what makes them so volatile.
People think that PoL is some kind of neutral money market thing, and this is roughly the case with stable swaps (like liquid staking assets) but with a volatile coin, it’s more like a purchase.
That $3m could very easily serve as exit liquidity if there are $NEWT holders with deep bags, and it may be the best chance they will ever get.
Supporting $NEWT might make sense with a safer mechanism, like providing LP incentives that people who want to take the risk could farm. But providing $3m of (exit?) liquidity sounds too risky to me.
I also have to concur with some of the earlier comments asking why we are going to be contributing more PoL to a platform that seems to be actively hostile towards Cosmos Hub consumer chains, and is already getting a hefty PoL allocation.
I’m not sure whether this proposal makes sense really. Or, if it does, whether the amounts should be as high as proposed.
But I disagree with the statement that Osmosis does not return value to Neutron. Osmosis governance is in the middle of approving what essentially amounts to a charitable donation to Neutron. Giving $250k in POL for OSMO to Neutron at a hilariously disproportionate benefit to Neutron and helping with your positioning quite a bit.
Does alignment and growing the pie only make sense when Neutron is the beneficiary?
Agree with you but we are spectating the result live on chain. 2 days ago it was turning to NO and many active users from Osmosis are still pushing to vote No on Osmo forum, X… etc
The current vote result is a good surprise and I’m happy to see the Osmo community signaling this cooperative move.
I do think the prop will probably pass though. If it does in a few days, I’d hope to see some recognition of that on the part of the folks in this thread that appear to see alignment as unidirectional!
Spending real money to buy valueless tokens to the sole purpose of trying to get hypothetical adoption. We won’t support meme coin expenses on the hub. Ever.
i’m disagree with any spent in any memecoin. Memecoins are like ponzi. Maybe one can be justify in the cryptosphere for tips’ economy and it is a kennel. Doge has 1st mover advantage anyway, and it stays useless too. Multiplication of dogs token are useless and bad publicity for our ecosystem. The hub needs to keep quality in his vision to attract value project.
The token swap is a separate agreement which I do think was value additive for both chains I meant specifically when using NTRN in the community pool for this agreement. If they were packaged in the same proposal and that value was accounted for with additional liquidity, that’d be different
I didn’t mean to say that the relationship between Osmosis and Neutron is unidirectional in general. I was saying that this proposal in particular was !
