There is nothing community first about building stuff that depends on code written by the North Korean military.
Nothing.
It is a community last thing entirely.
2 Likes
Who is using hydro?
@Thyborg - who is using hydro?
I am asking this question because these 5-minute sellouts smell funny.
âŚwho is using hydro?
Please provide written answers.
Yesterday I asked who is using hydro.
Today, I am asking again.
Who is using hydro?
How many users does hydro have?
is anyone here on the forum a hydro user?
So far, I have met zero hydro users, other than the projects launching on hydro and really those arenât the kinds of users I am concerned with.
I have tried to meet hydro users.
Everyone says the same thing: it was full when I got there. So I am interested in learning how it got full.
3 Likes
Interesting. I am making bullet points here, please answer bulleted questions.
-
@Thyborg will you be leaving informal systems?
-
Will there be overlap between people working on hydro and people working at informal systems? I am asking if anyone will work for both orgs.
The Informal Hub team in 2024 consisted of 14 people, split between Forge, Hydro and Hub maintenance. For 2025, we believe it is possible to achieve our Hydro objectives with a reduced team of 6 Full-Time Equivalent staff: 1 Project Lead, 1 Technical Lead, 1 Product Lead, 2 Developers & 1 Growth Lead. We will use the same per-head total rate averages of $325K per year, which includes approximately $225K in salary (and relevant overhead such as employer taxes and benefits) and a standard margin to pay for operational expenses like legal, HR, finance as well as some profit buffer for the company. Like last year, these rates are aligned with the mid-point of market software development rates ($110-$220/hour)
Again I want to ask for clarification. My understanding is that you work at informal systems. You made this governance proposal.
The governance proposal details The creation of a new entity. I would like to know with written certainty, who will be working on hydro from informal, and whether or not they will work at informal systems concurrent to hydro.
Project leads, software engineers, anything creative, itâs a huge mistake to treat people like interchangeable parts. They simply are not. So I wish to not treat people as interchangeable parts, and learn who youâre referencing when you say:
6 Full-Time Equivalent staff: 1 Project Lead, 1 Technical Lead, 1 Product Lead, 2 Developers & 1 Growth Lead
This really isnât clear to me.
Also, The community is evaluating this for investment and what you have done here is you have given very generic figures. I believe strongly that it matters greatly who is on that team and what roles they will fill. I also want to know how you feel that hydro will self-perpetuate.
-
Who is on the team?
-
How does this team stay funded? Youâre asking for $1m for a six person team, which will have an annual cost on salaries alone of $1.8m
I would love to ask @Trix for his input as well.
overall, it seems that this is the hub funding the creation of a product team that could have different objectives than skip.
I think the community has pretty wide consensus that the consolidation was a good thing.
I donât know why we would kick off a governance initiative to create a ~6 month runway for a new company.
- @Thyborg do you intend to raise money?
why would anyone build on top of code that is known to be authored by the worldâs most prolific cryptocurrency theft organization?
This makes no sense to me at all.
I think that until that code is removed, there is no chance that the Cosmos Hub will enjoy the economic performance that it deserves. Every single rational investor would look at the numerous enormous hacks pulled off by North Korea and say oh gosh oh gosh Iâm going to step back a bit now.
Even those investors who might put in letâs say $10, but might toss in $100 if that was gone.
Hereâs a tweet about Lazarus
Skip got on cito show said LSM will be removed
Perfect.
I donât think I support funding Hydro. But most of the issues have been eliminated.
skip just confirmed that LSM removal is done in prototype form
All good guys. Really my concern was about the North Korean code. I donât think that I support funding Hydro but look this is good enough. Thereâs no reason for me to support veto here or anything like that.
1 Like
Thanks everyone. I believe all questions & comments were addressed in todayâs Twitter space. As mentioned during the space, we agree to push back the on-chain posting to early January ; if the proposal is approved, the Hydro team mandate will run from mid-January to mid-June.
3 Likes
Not that my vote changes gov outcomes, but Iâll be voting YES on this.
As both @Carter_Lee_Woetzel and @CuriousJ have said above - Hydro has definitely managed to generate excitement and utility for ATOM, much to the tireless efforts of @Thyborg and @btruax (Brian is literally glued to his desk, 20 hours a day, making Hydro better!!)**
Excluding the âHydro Ecosystem Grantsâ budget, the ask of $850k is completely reasonable, for what is effectively the only first-party app for ATOM.
As Carter said, reframe the ask to âhow much value can Hydro provideâ:
As for the Hydro Ecosystem Grants budget - I also think this is entirely reasonable. In my last few weeks at AADAO, while not directly involved, I have listened to discussions around the Hydro-related grant applications (that @CuriousJ mentioned above). For Hydro to grow and thrive, we need an ecosystem of tooling, apps and Hydro-adjacent products to come about, and a small grants budget can go a long way to incentivize builders to build on Hydro.
** I want to also give a shout-out to @arlai-mk and @agent.kwosh, whoâve been supporting users on the Hydro Pilot Telegram group. Iâm sadly still not a Hydro user (missed the window to get inâŚTWICE!), but that group is active af, and those 2 are definitely on top of the conversations there.
8 Likes
@Thyborg, why do you ignore the questions that are asked of you?
Question 1. Who is using hydro?
Question 2. Will you be leaving informal systems?
As for Q1, I donât see any active users on the product that requests funding. The visitor statistics are unhealthy. It looks like bots are cheating.
2 Likes
The product that makes a request for funding does not have an organic user base. Above on the graph I have given the number of visits to Hydro for the last month. The graph looks like a saw. There are days when NO ONE visits the site. The graph of Hydro visits indicates that the product is useless. Nobody needs it. And surges of interest in this product are possible only by forcibly driving traffic to the site through Telegram, Twitter, and so on.
For comparison, I will give a graph of my own product, which I made from scratch, for the funding of which I did not ask anyone for a dollar. As you can see from my graph, a normal product that is needed by at least someone does not have such dips in daily visits that we can see on the Hydro graph.
Now my final question. Why should we spend millions of dollars on a product like Hydro that no one needs and that no one uses? When will the looting of the Cosmos Hub community pool stops?
1 Like
If you are a user who wasnât able to get in before the caps filled, you have very little reason to go back until the next round starts. Same with anyone who DID get in, voted and are now waiting for the round to be close to ending.
Relying purely on website visits without the context is pretty weak.
2 Likes
You are missing the core concept on how Hydro works, there is no point to daily visit the site (especially if you are in the TG group). The content on the FE doesnât change daily.
Aksing who is âusingâ Hydro tells me you didnât bother to much to research what Hydro is and how it functions
3 Likes
This seems like more of you patting yourself on the back and advertising your own project. Like others have said, there is really no reason to go to the hydro site except during the 4 mins before it fills up and to check for rewards or newly introduced proposals to vote for.
Traffic may be relevant in the future when it opens up out of beta but volume will still be more important.
Lots of us asked for this and the whole community needs it. If CosmosHub doesnât keep this new $ATOM first mindset and start building value around the Hub and token, it will die. ICS, Skip, Hydro, etc is what weâve all been trying like hell to bash through the ICFs stubborn heads forever, CosmosHub has to be the mothership of Cosmos, all dApps donât need their own chain, and $ATOM has to be needed because weâve been here too long relying on itâs speculative nature.
Of all the crap that weâve needlessly thrown ATOM at in the past, you choose to complain about the thing that brings value and helps solve the biggest issue with Cosmos, limited & fractured liquidity.
Hydro, Skip, ICS, ArkProtocol bringing native CosmosHub NFTs on chain, and the whole new outlook on making CosmosHub a real chain that isnât just here to support every other chain without any thought of itself is the only reason Iâm still here. I was on the verge of unstaking and selling every asset and leaving the whole IBC entirely because the 75% of my wealth that I have in Solana, SUI, Ethereum, Arbitrum, and others have all dramatically outperformed. Iâm sure I wasnât the only one, and many pulled the trigger, including some very large investors that dumped late last year.
If this new strategy is abandoned before seeing itâs potential, Iâll be gone too.
3 Likes
Thanks for revising and updating the main post @Thyborg. I believe that our team has addressed the commentary, feedback and questions left on this thread.
If anyone has additional questions, please let us know. We are entering âLast Callâ phase here before posting our prop on-chain. Weâre happy to continue addressing questions and feedback during the voting period as well. DM me on TG or Twitter or set a meeting with me if youâd like a 1:1.
2 Likes
On behalf of the PRO Delegatorsâ validator, we would like to inform the community of our decision to cast an abstain vote on this proposal to ensure transparency and avoid any conflict of interest. One of our founding members, Phil_RX, actively serves on the Hydro Committee, and we believe that maintaining the highest ethical standards is essential in such cases.
While both Govmos and our validator team strongly support the Hydro project, we encourage our delegators to cast their own independent, informed votes. This approach allows us to remain aligned with the communityâs interests while upholding fairness and integrity.
Thank you for your understanding,
5 Likes
Hey Hydro Community,
Weâve hit a little bump and had to submit a second funding proposal on-chain. Hereâs what happened:
When I submitted our first proposal (#984) using a popular proposal creation UI (the same one Iâve used for Cosmos Hub upgrade props for 15 months), it didnât include the requested 180,000 ATOM in the transaction. This means if executed, #984 wonât transfer any funds.
You can check the tx here to verify: Mintscan
To fix this, Iâve submitted a second proposal (#986), which includes the full funding request and all the correct details. Shoutout to @lexa from Hypha for spotting the issue and helping me test the second proposal on the Cosmos Hub testnet before submitting it.
I want to apologize to validators and ATOM stakers for the inconvenience of having two proposals to vote on. We recommend voting Yes on both, as only Prop #986 will execute any actions.
Thanks for your patience and understanding.
You can easily cast your vote on Mintscan or Keplr here:
4 Likes
Glad we caught the issue early, at least!
Iâm hopeful that the devs for the tool will push a fix soon. Weâd love to get them set up on the testnet so folks can try out their proposals using the tool before pushing to mainnet.
2 Likes
They said theyâve already fixed it, so hopefully testnet is next on their backlog.
1 Like
Just to re-emphasize the question of the budget, Hydroâs team members arenât getting paid $325K per year. Iâve prepared a breakdown below, and weâve given more details about this in this Twitter space here.
During the hour-long twitter space, we did a deep dive on many additional topics. Itâs worth a listen for sure!
Please reach out with any follow-up questions - DMs open!
1 Like
Cost seems unreasonable⌠like top 0.1% salary worldwide. Who are those people asking so much money for this ? They want to be paid like a CEO of a big tech company making millions of profits
Voting no. Sorry, find better and less greedy people.
4 Likes
Iâm voting no, but I want to say that cost isnât the reason. Cost here is⌠Basically just meh. Not something I object to though, and sorry to say but in fact it is less than 0.1% of humans who can use the cosmos software stack.
Hence the compensation.
Neat stretch goal though: 0.1% population as users of the SDK
âŚI have some concerns about hydro and systemic risk, but if this thing passes thatâs okay with me. I wonât be vetoing, donât think people should veto, and wish everybody good luck!
Also I would love answers to the questions here:
Actually given that no questions have been answered, I formally suggest veto.
3 Likes
Too many red flags⌠not a single important question answered, funds are set to go to an unknown yet unregistered entity with no transparency or accountability. Also, is there at least one person here who is actively using hydro? voting no for sure.
3 Likes
The kicker for me here is that @Thyborg is refusing to answer questions in written form, referring everyone to the Twitter spaces.
Maybe itâs better to veto. I figured he would actually answer questions.
1 Like