[PROPOSAL #82][REJECTED] ATOM 2.0: A new vision for Cosmos Hub

Thanks for the new proposal Sam.

I think these changes leave more room for maneuvering the future once the governance mechanism has been put in place.

1.2 is the best revision so far. I appreciate all the work you guys are putting in despite having to put up with constant critiquing all day by plebs like myself.
Jae’s photon concept seems to be an effective solution to the monetary policy issues that arise from the changes in staking and liquidity trends. Photon also supports expansion of the ecosystem.
will the proposal only signal that the community desires the R&D process around the scheduler and allocator to begin or will it also commit us to “atom 2.0,” to a traunch system to fund and trust councils, assemblies, and dao’s to transparently administer cosmos payment for order flow?
what are the tranches funding? If funding proposals had 11 days instead of 14 days, why are DAO’s and councils or human judgement necessary?
Is seems like the whole DAO system is just to use the communities capital to rebalance their asset portfolios. “actively seek to fund incentive-aligned communities that can credibly aid in achieving the Allocator’s mandate” seems to translate to: subsidize core dev projects with atom from thin air that doesn’t count until a project holding atom as reserve currency gets over levered on the bad side of a trade, or exploit, etc.
the shell game DAO structure and all the “guarantees” flying around in the allocator part of the WP is broken. it reads as if you are proposing that the hub create portfolio DAOs and facilitate insider trading between chains through those DAOs via a third party beneficiary…

what does this proposal signal to be an acceptable % of founders, developers, and early investors of that third party beneficiary can safely occupy within the councils and assembly?

Thanks for all the hard work to mitigate adjustment requests from the community. After having meaningful discussions and following modification, I believe the current ATOM 2.0 whitepaper is fully agreeable from the community perspective. From my own viewpoint, let me summarize core modification from the original white paper as below:

  1. 4M community pool issuance

→ The community governance should have the authority to approve suggested Treasury and Assembly structure.

  1. 4M * 10 tranches issuance to Treasury

→ Cosmos Hub Charter approved by governance is the condition for 4M*10 tranches issuance.
→ Each tranche issuance should be approved by governance.

  1. Safety measure for decreasing security subsidy

→ Suggested safety measure protects dPoS security of Cosmos Hub when the decreased security subsidy fails to incentivize enough staking ratio.
→ Decreasing with fixed percent has too stiff speed in early period where the new revenue is relatively uncertain. I would like to recommend decreasing with fixed amount of ATOM so that we have enough time to evidence enough revenue before security subsidy level becoming too low.

  1. Each budget subcomponent should be approved by the community governance

→ This process allows community to express their opinions about each separate budget plan before aggregated to single tranche send-out proposal. The community can selectively reject part of the entire yearly budget plan so that it can be revised and proposed again by the Assembly until it has majority agreement from the community.


i noticed that v1.2 doesnt address anything from the document linked in Prop80. are you guys going to address any of those Atom 2.0 risks and points of failure before the first signaling proposal?

Tbh I think the big short one is a little misguided. Hub investments into IS consumer chains do not represent liabilities. That should be pretty self-evident.

The cosmos minimalism one is also kind of all over the place argumentatively. I appreciate the sentiment that the Hub should be minimal, which is why as much functionality should be pushed to consumer chains as possible. IS will allow the Cosmos Hub chain to remain one of the most minimal and secure in the ecosystem. There are risks around the Treasury being deployed effectively, of course, but if you work backwards from the premise that the objective is for ATOM to be the premier interchain reserve, then (1) the ATOMs need to come from somewhere so the Hub needs a Treasury and (2) bootstrapping demand by deploying into the best risk adjusted opportunities requires a layer of delegated entities that can negotiate and run complex strategies, there’s no way around this.

Now you can start with different premises. That ATOM’s main function should NOT be the preferred interchain reserve, or that ATOM should be but it will happen inevitably with zero work or resources from the Hub. However I strongly disagree with both of these assertions.


oh, i didnt write it, its not my philosophy on minimalism or anything like that. the other day i looked at it, and It just happened to be a more complete list than my own, of all the possible risks that emerge based on 2.0.
I think that photon could solve liquid staking governance problem by using it instead, and be the payment layer using colateralized atom=photon and fund first consumer chain on ICS2

ATOM can still be the interchain reserve

*not to be disparaging to the ATOM 2.0 moniker, no preference what stuff is called so long as it has solvable issues.

Atom2.0, why not refined into several function to vote, disposable through atom2.0 is difficult to achieve consensus, now the dispute is whether the Treasury need so much money, it would dilute the holder of the atom.

1 Like

is there a contemporary estimate for the annual labor costs associated with paying all the various council members and assembly people involved in 2.0?

Yes, it is a good proposal.

1 Like

I just realized that prop 26 was the OG of this. I specifically remember that it was rejected =)

Just saying…

Voting is up and clear YES from us.

Enough has been talked and this is the best way to move forward.


Yes, it is a good proposal.


MEV only exists until the market inefficiencies that yields it are resolved.
Atom 2.0, rather than striving to resolve these market inefficiencies, proposes gambling the capital of ATOM holders on sustained monetized exploitation of market inefficiency in the hope that MEV, payment for order flow, and monetizing governance will generate enough revenue to make up for the lost revenue spent on under-discussed and under-disclosed projects and expenses.
Atom2.0 virtue signals innovation and growth, yet covets the inefficiency that will theoretically sustain it.

What are the expected monthly labor costs over the first 36 months for implementing the yet to be defined number and purpose of 2.0 councils, assemblies, etc.

Did Atom2.0 intentionally monetize liquid staking votes with anonymous voting out of curiosity relating to the dollar value of democracy?

1 Like

For the purpose of non-diluting ATOM stakeholders, for the purpose of securing a proven idealogy via one hub first, to ensure the safety of all chains to come, wouldn’t it be safer to step forth w/ ATOM ONE?

I am for the 2.0 vision, the sense of urgency to compete as one of the top 10 “crypto assets” is great AND necessary. 2.0, to me, screams that the collective at large is excited, pumped and ready to GO :confetti_ball: . It’s beautiful to see the shared belief that the COSMOS ecosystem will provide a safe and secured space for the future generations to come, inclusive and non-discriminatory in any way.

If 2.0 guarantees security/safety for all moving forward, for both the intellecual and the emotional intelligent, including the security of non-diluting ATOM stakeholders, by all means :heavy_heart_exclamation:

Hi everyone. This is Mikey from Cosmostation - got some parts that would be nice if there were more specific clarifications.

  • Seems like extra 4M $ATOM will be minted according to the whitepaper - is there a specific timeline for the issuance? Or will all the details be outlined in the future in separate proposals? On a high-level view, is the extra 4M issuance inevitably necessary?

  • There has been a change in the amount of issuance - a part i still don’t quite understand is: why 4M? What are the factors considered to calculate this amount?

  • Will the changes stated in the whitepaper be addressed by proper on-chain proposals separately? As many of us agree, the whitepaper suggests rather a “radical” concepts and i wonder if all of these will be well revised & discussed as they should be.


Hi, and good afternoon community!

Quoted concern:

“The basis for the atom2 tokenomics change was to make it more deflationary, but they didn’t remove the 2/3 staking target nor are the 4M tranches going to their treasury limited to 10…” *

  • 3 ATOM: The Interchain Reserve Currency
    3.1 Issuance:

“As a safety measure, if the staking rate ever falls
below 2/3, the new monetary policy will pause and the original monetary policy
will resume, incrementally increasing issuance up to a maximum percentage of
supply until the staking ratio again exceeds 2/3…”
-2.0 hm.

Doesn’t this entail that it’s moreso ATOM HOLDERS, not stakers (or am I mistaken that these are separate) that are the power users moving forward? So what about minnows/minority who are staking? How are their interests being taken care of?

How can we as a community address this? Not only for the COSMOS ATOM holder/believer, but for the ATOM staker as well. I don’t think anyone, anywhere, wants to be taken advantage of. This is why it seemed 1.0, with ATOM/PHOTONS seemed to be appropriate. Am I wrong?

1 Like

jumping on the discussion as well, i firmly believe that all these updates can be made [and it should] without any additional atom minting, afaik all the teams are well funded… Until a better form will be made available, we [01node] will be voting a NOwithVeto.

ps: what happened to the grants program? that one was going very well.

also, @zaki_iqlusion @ebuchman, Zampolin, aren t you in a bit of conflict of interest here? since you guys are running validators and voted Yes for this proposal? maybe an abstain vote will better reflect the community voice?


It was said that a “no” on this proposal needed an explanation here… Seriously?
OK then.

I Think Atom 2.0 is a great thing, really. Nice job.

I’m here (in Cosmos ecosystem), for governance, this IS my spec, I don’t code.

The end of this proposal is a clear disrespect to people who think that a 2/3 vote is sometime pushing the collective stronger.

So my “no with véto”, at the end, is not for burying your project, I think it’s great.

But to tell that I don’t need to be told by someone else (how old are you guys?) what I’m thinking when I vote.


It was said that a “no” on this proposal needed an explanation here

To clarify this - the ‘Please indicate why on the Cosmos Hub forum.’ is generally intended as a request for feedback so that proposal makers can incorporate it into future proposals, not necessarily a demand to explain yourself :slight_smile:

No one is obligated to justify their vote, but without receiving feedback, it’s very hard for proposers to adapt and change.