[Prop#986] [Passed] Funding Hydro development & integrations in 2025

Hub Proposals Community Spend
41

Why on Earth would you vote Yes on a proposal whose author refuses to write the answers to very reasonable questions?

2 Likes
42

I agree with this statment. It feels like he is dodging the questions on purpose and there are some very legitimate questions here. I might switch my vote to veto just because of this.

Although I think Cosmos Hub is in a dire need of some kind of constitution just for stuff like this. How and where can discussion occure for the proposals, how and for what purposes can community pool funds be used for etc.

2 Likes
43

Hey a few people have asked me to comment here! For clarity, the “Skip” validator is not associated with us in anyway. How it votes doesn’t reflect what we think or would vote.

I am new to hub governance and can’t speak to a lot of the convo here. I also don’t want to tell anyone how to vote or ask people to vote. I will say a few things about how I think about Hydro as a product, where I do feel comfortable commenting!

  1. We are not focusing on protocol owned liquidity as a core part of our strategy, but we think it could be valuable for ATOM and for the ecosystem. There’s a bunch of examples of protocols like Hydro (e.g. Royco, Proof of Liquidity, Curve wars etc…) where liquidity bribes find strong product market fit in active defi ecosystems and drive value to an underlying token.

  2. There is demand for ATOM liquidity today, and I personally expect this will grow. I have had conversations with teams that have indicated interest in Hydro because ATOM is highly visible and liquid, compared to their own tokens or their ecosystems token. This especially comes from lending protocols like Mars and Neptune.

  3. I think as Interchain Labs and other contributors built out more hub native defi and atom centric defi you will see demand for ATOM liquidity increase substantially

  4. I’m keen to see more TGEs on the Hub. Crypto ecosystems live or die by the value of their native asset issuance, so we need to see a ton more of this over the next couple of years in Cosmos and on the hub itself.

Thanks!

6 Likes
44

Then please, show that if a cosmos hub app is attacked, you’ll actually do something about it.

Appealing to apps is not single dimensional.

Show the apps that if the worst does happen, The foundation actually gives a shit. And well if it doesn’t, do not expect the apps to actually show up.

1 Like
45

the prop got accepted anyway. time to short atom :slight_smile:

2 Likes
46

I don’t think it’s worthy of a short.

But it does suck.

2 Likes
47

surely nfa, but considering the general trend of atom going down while everything going up during this bull run I bet we will see 5.0-5.5 price in the coming weeks, especially with $1m worth of atom to be dumped to feed the hydra :rofl:

for me this proposal is a last nail in the coffin of the cosmos ecosystem. If you wanna build an app… why would you choose cosmos over solana? makes no sense to build on a swamp

3 Likes
48

This aged well, my friend. ATOM went down even more than I expected, was $3.5 a few days ago. Hope you listened and shorted the sht out of it :slight_smile:

1 Like
49

These comments are off-topic. I propose an admin close this post.

1 Like
52

Hi folks! I’ve reopened the post - as we transition moderation please feel free to send a message when feedback is needed. I apologize for not posting when freezing the post:

Contextual commentary, opinions, and feedback are welcome. However, specific to off-topic:

Given Props are part of a mechanical process - we do encourage off-topic discussions as above (pricing) to happen in the appropriate category or using an adjacent topic to keep this mechanism clean and focused on the prop’s discussion. The post is reopened to transition the normal open<>close period.

Thanks!

3 Likes
53

Hi, thank you for reopening the post.

I don’t know who you are sir, and I don’t know how to message you, and I fully reserve the right to speak words.

Specifically there’s a very good reason this wasn’t done as a DM: this was a fantastic opportunity to lead a push for actual censorship resistance in all aspects of cosmos. I do request that you do not take any personal offence here.

No one should be able to request that posts be closed and have that request accepted.

Anyone should be able to request anything they’d like to.

Additionally, posts should not automatically close after a set period of time.

The conversations on this forum have already lasted years, with the exception of those that were closed to prevent what @lexa referred to as necroing. Me?

I fear no word even necrophilia.

We want long, high context conversations that can bring value to the community. Post closures prevent this from happening.

Disagreements can be productive.

I understand full well that there are members of the community like @btruax who wish to simply silence points of view they disagree with, but i live differently from that.

Please limit censorship of this forum to ensuring that pornography is not posted here.

If that means that thin skinned types choose to go elsewhere, so be it, as our purpose here, to my knowledge is to build permissionless, censorship resistant software. If we cannot discuss that software freely, we won’t reach our goal.

I had many additional questions on this one for @thyborg and @btruax.

They’re above, I await replies.

Additionally it seems that the much repeated request to discontinue automatic post closure seems lost.

That’s okay we will move the forum to the hub, and we will speak uncensored.

I would also like to ask

  • why was this post closed?

  • Are we building permissionless censorship resistant systems or are we the censors?

  • Why would anyone – even @btruax consider ending discussion on this controversial governance proposal to fund informal (I will assume this is the case until we are given the name of the entity in question, which I have asked for but haven’t received) this to be an appropriate response to @viv post?

  • What is inappropriate about @viv saying that he feels that the liquidation of $atom resulting from this proposal will harm the price of $atom and that he wishes to profit by shorting? It seems non controversial to me and it is absolutely related to the proposal.

  • Why does this forum automatically close posts after a set period of time? Justify it without using the word Necro.

1000012759
10000127591344×2992 413 KB

  • What if somebody wants to talk to me about my post 5 years from now? They can’t.

Yes they could start another topic but quite frankly that topic wouldn’t be the one that I started. My path and the path of whomever is replying or wants to reply but is silenced by poor policy then diverges, meaning that the 60 day censorship rule actively leeches value from the community AND discourages meaningful participation.

If someone were to disagree, I would never ask that their words be deleted, nor would I actively seek for them to be silenced like @btruax did. I consider such approaches as the antithesis of cosmos.

The debate matters and who knows there’s some tiny speck of a chance that I could be wrong. But I’m firmly convicted on this matter.

To be clear, I have had very specific conversations with mag and Barry about the state of censorship on this forum. And automatically closing discussions was absolutely mentioned.

This fear of words is extremely silly.

All of this is now entirely on topic.

These comments are important, and I praise @viv for accurately predicting that there would be a price hit from this proposal. I propose an admin end censorship on this forum.

See the difference?

1 Like
54

first of all, thats your subjective opinion. you are free to share it here but it does not mean you have a right to request to close this post because you disagree with someone.

also, if you feel like this post is lacking on-topic comments, why don’t you help @Thyborg to answer numerous questions regarding this shady proposal that @jacobgadikian and a few other community members have raised earlier? thanks

2 Likes
55

Viv,

I wanted to thank you for your not-financial-advice. Clearly you grasp the layers between proposals and the price of atom at a deep level. If I had shorted based on your not-financial-advice, I would have made money.

Thanks for bringing that opportunity to the community!

1 Like
56

…but you’re wrong.

@viv was posting his thoughts on the impact THIS PROPOSAL would have on the price of $atom.

This thread is the right place to do that.

I understand that @btruax and other informal systems team members may disagree, but if they do, they can do like any pleb and use their words like a big boy / girl.

Instead, Informal Systems chose to silence the entire discussion, which is fully valid and well placed.

@viv then came back and gloated that he was correct that THIS PROPOSAL had the effect on the price of $atom that he anticipated, making at least one person (me) aware of gov prop driven volatility opportunities and I’m grateful for it. In the future I may attempt such shorts.

I think it’s important to remain grounded - this proposal wasn’t a “mechanical process”. It funded Informal (or another unnamed entity) to work on hydro. Funding proposals:

  • Have real financial impacts
  • Should be reviewed even years after their passage to determine weather or not value was brought to the community
  • Should never have their posts locked, because they need to be discussed

Way I’m seeing it is that @viv provided more value to the community by outlining an opportunity than this entire proposal will ever bring.

@Thyborg can you provide the community with information about the company / entity you said would be created to pursue this work?

  • What is its name?
  • Where is it registered?
  • Is it raising money?
  • Who is it raising money from?
  • Does it exist?
  • Are people hired?
  • How’s progress?
  • Blockers?
  • Timeline?

@qxnico was this post helpful in expanding your understanding of why @viv commentary is entirely in the right place?

Do you have any questions for me?

2 Likes
57

The way the votes of large validators were distributed on this proposal says only one thing. Cosmos is the most corrupt ecosystem among all cryptocurrency projects. The main reason for corruption is the lack of change of power. In all normal democracies, power is changeable. For example, if we take presidential power, then in all democratic countries, such as the USA, the presidential term is limited to two terms of 4 years. If we take the CIS countries, Africa, then power is for life. The same is in Cosmos. The power of validators in Cosmos is for life. No rotation like in Polkadot, Solana. Hence the complete lack of development and total corruption.

Those info-gypsies who seized power in the Cosmos ecosystem today will bring it to the bottom. I am talking about such validators as Stakecito, Posthuman and other influencers who are only interested in selling paid subscriptions to their telegram channels and cultivating an audience. These info gypsies don’t care at all which project to validate and they validate everything. And then we see such wonderful votes as in the proposal with earthquake in Turkey and casting vote YES from validator Posthuman.

Everything that was in this proposal is waste of public funds. And the majority of validators led by Stakcito, Posthuman and other info gypsies vote YES. Why? Because Informal Systems is also a major validator. Like Stakcito, it is present in almost all projects of the ecosystem. And at the right moment, it will also vote in favor of Stakcito, when he once again asks for money to organize another event, where he will certainly receive kickbacks. This unlimited power of validators and the corruption that they have bred is ruining the ecosystem. All the founders have already left. Only validators remain, who will continue to help each other fill their pockets with money for useless unnecessary projects like Hydro, conferences, etc.

1 Like
58

  • What is its name?
    it’s not registered yet but it’ll likely be called “hydro labs”

  • Where is it registered?
    likely in the BVI

  • Is it raising money?
    no

  • Who is it raising money from?
    it’s not raising money

  • Does it exist?
    not yet

  • Are people hired?
    not yet

  • How’s progress?
    we’re talking to a legal counsel there

  • Blockers?
    not right now

  • Timeline?
    ideally it’s done in the next 2-3 months

1 Like
59

Cool.

Ok, so

  • who is holding the funds?

  • Has the atom been sold?

60

the hydro team dao & the hydro grants dao, as per the proposal

$667,500 worth of atom has been sold, as per the proposal

1 Like