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

[jacobgadikian]

@Syed

Not that my vote changes gov outcomes, but I’ll be voting YES on this.

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

[Kamikaza731]

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.

[bpiv400]

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!

[jacobgadikian]

@bpiv400

I’m keen to see more TGEs on the Hub

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.

Jacob Gadikian 🦄x⚗️x🧀 (@gadikian) on X

Bounty: $4000 identify the person or persons who attacked the cosmos hub

it is of vital importance to actually address security issues Cosmos chain teams sabotage @cosmoshub in order to gain competitive advantage, with the tacit blessing of @interchain_io and its contractors, here’s proof: two weeks before the incident, they cosmos hub was running IBC v3.0…0 on mainnet >6mos after v3.0.0 was retracted for security issues. And I told @buchmanster, @JTremback, other members of informal hub team, and the full ibc team about the issue >2wks before the exploit and I cit…

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.

[viv]

the prop got accepted anyway. time to short atom

[jacobgadikian]

I don’t think it’s worthy of a short.

But it does suck.

[viv]

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

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