[Proposal #865] [ACCEPTED] Funding ATOM Accelerator DAO for 2024


  • 2023-Nov-25: Posted initial draft
  • 2023-Nov-27: Added external links including the 2023 AADAO Impact Report
  • 2023-Nov-27: Added Calendly pages to book calls with AADAO members
  • 2023-Dec-03 Updated Oversight Committee and Legal Structure parts of the current proposal + added links to full docs of the 2 mentioned sections.
    2023-Dec-10 Removal of Growth SubDAO and modification of the Strategy Committee
    2023-Dec-11 Update to Budget from 1,021,000 to 975,811 ATOM and revised bonus allocation from 125,000 to 100,000 following removal of Growth subDAO.
    2023-Dec-12 Added compensation brackets by category of contributor.
    2023-Dec-16 Added links to internal protocols + bonus doc

Table of Contents

  • Summary

    • AADAO contributions to the Cosmos Hub
    • 2023 Achievements
    • Looking ahead: AADAO’s vision for 2024
  • Governance

    • Roles and Responsibilities
    • Migration to DAO DAO
    • Legal Structure and Trustee
  • SubDAOs Roadmap

    • Grant subDAO
  • AADAO Team

  • Budget and Compensation

    • Operational Budget
    • Performance and Retention
  • Suggested Timeframe

  • Appendix A - Mitigation Plan


As the ATOM Accelerator DAO (AADAO) approaches a significant milestone, having matured over the past nine months, we are poised to enter a new phase of growth. This proposal is seeking 975,811 ATOM (valued at $9.75M at a spot price of $10) funding for the next chapter. Our wish is to establish AADAO as a long lasting DAO playing an integral part in the future of the Cosmos Hub. Our aim is not just to sustain our operations for the next year but to lay the groundwork for AADAO’s enduring presence and contribution to the ATOM community.

AADAO contributions to the Cosmos Hub

Alignment and Dedication to the Hub: AADAO stands as the only 100% community-funded organization, fully aligned with and owned by the ATOM community, dedicated to serving the Hub’s interests.

Supporting the Developer Ecosystem: By bootstrapping a grant program, AADAO prevents developer migration to other Layer 1s by providing funding, support, and resources.

Cultural Shift in the ATOM Community: AADAO has been instrumental in shifting the focus from passive staking to active building, fostering entrepreneurship and unlocking the collective intelligence of the Cosmos Hub.

Alternative Funding Source: Most funding proposals requests from the Cosmos Hub public governance are better off channeled through a grant-administration organization that is equipped to assess the validity of a spend proposal and follow-up on the deliverables, creating a system of accountability.

For more details on AADAO 2023, please view the 2023 ATOM Accelerator Impact Report

2023 Achievements

Throughout 2023, AADAO has been at the forefront of driving growth and innovation within the ATOM Economic Zone, achieving notable milestones across diverse areas:

  • ATOM Economic Zone Build Out
    • Neutron airdrop was redirected to the ATOM community pool: AADAO identified in Neutron’s proposal that the unclaimed airdrop of 42M of $NTRN was destined to go back to the Neutron DAO. AADAO successfully negotiated to redirect this amount to the ATOM community pool, worth $22M as of November 14th, 2023;
    • Bootstrapping and custody of the ATOM -stATOM pool (value of 450K ATOM) on Astroport on behalf of the Cosmos Hub in the first ever Protocol Owned Liquidity deployed by the Cosmos Hub.
  • Leading the charge on ATOM Tokenomics: Funding Blockworks Research, Binary Builders and RMIT to research and propose improvements to ATOM’s tokenomics;
  • Shared Security
    • Funded core development of Mesh Security with Osmosis, Axelar and Akash with a core contributor from Informal Systems as part of the working group in charge of developing Mesh;
    • Funded the establishment of a new core team with regard to onboarding new consumer chains into Replicated Security. Cryptocrew Validators will be the main point of contact for all testnet matters.
  • Promoting ATOM as gas in the Interchain: Grants were awarded to Leap Wallet and Mystic Labs to maximize ATOM’s visibility within their respective wallets, strategically positioning ATOM as the primary interchain money within the Cosmos ecosystem and increasing use cases where ATOM is used as default gas.
  • Funding dapps (Amulet, Shogun, Astrovault, CALC Finance) to build on Neutron with ATOM at the center as gas and preferred collateral asset.
  • Cofunding Metamask Snaps integration for all Cosmos chains: The hub will benefit from 33% of wallet IBC swap fees once that feature is live.
  • Doubling down on DAOs by deploying on Neutron and opening the door for future DAOs to be more transparent and use best-in-class tooling.
  • Media & Events: supporting events ranging from small community meetups and developer recruitment through speaking at Messari Mainnet and sponsorship of Cosmoverse.

Based on the return of capital of $22M to Cosmos community pool during the past eight months, AADAO has already achieved a 2.75x cash on cash return to Cosmos community pool relative to the initial $8M cost of funding the phase I program.

Looking ahead: AADAO’s vision for 2024

Leveling up our Grant Program: We plan to refine the AADAO grant program to improve the return on investment from our grants. This will involve a strategic shift towards more Request-for-Proposals (RFPs) and high added-value grants, targeting specific needs and opportunities within the ecosystem. While adopting this more targeted approach, we remain committed to supporting open grant submissions, balancing AADAO strategic priorities with grassroots, community-driven projects.

Financial Sustainability and Growth: A pivotal goal for AADAO in 2024 is to progress towards financial self-sustainability. This involves crafting value-generating partnerships while advancing the Hub’s interests. It also implies sound treasury management which is critical in crypto where prices are volatile. This move towards financial independence is designed to alleviate the funding burden on the ATOM community pool while ensuring AADAO’s long-term stability and effectiveness in supporting the community. AADAO will remain fully owned by the ATOM community, preserving its alignment with the community’s interests and objectives, and all assets held by AADAO ultimately will stay as community owned resources.

Transition to a Full-Time Team Model: To enhance our operational effectiveness, AADAO will transition to a predominantly full-time team structure. Moving from 25% of the workforce being full-time to over 60%, this shift is informed by our experiences in 2023 and is a strategic move to bolster our internal capabilities and reach.


To accommodate our roadmap and transition towards becoming a fully fledged DAO, AADAO is implementing changes to our internal governance structure, aligning our organizational design with our long-term vision and objectives.

Roles and Responsibilities

  • Strategy Committee: Serves as the custodian of AADAO funds and responsible for budget allocations . Following the pause of the Growth SubDAO, the number of members will decrease from up to 7 in the initial proposal to 3 in the revised proposal with the goal of reaching 5 members in the future. The Strategy Committee is responsible for strategy prioritization, including the creation or dissolution of subDAOs in collaboration with the community. The Strategy Committee, led by the Program Manager, also handles treasury management and liaises with both the Oversight Committee and ATOM public governance.

  • Oversight Committee: The Oversight Committee has significant powers such as the VETO on new grants, the ability to discontinue an existing grant, the sign-off on contributor’s performance assessments, and the ability to terminate contributors for serious misconduct. The Oversight Committee’s ultimate goal is to ensure AADAO always acts in the best interests of the $ATOM community. In year one, the entirety of our oversight was self-appointed due to logistics constraints.

    Under the Renewal Mandate, our desire is to build on the work done while opening up the committee to a community-elected member for a total of 3 members. The process to designate a community member to join our oversight would start shortly after our funding proposal ends. It will likely follow the same process Osmosis used to designate their canonical Ethereum Bridge: multiple candidates putting up an on-chain proposal following a discussion period and the best elected of them wins. Eventually, the process could transition to support with the DAO DAO tooling as it becomes ready and available for service to the Hub community. Please consult our full write up on the Oversight going into Year 2

  • Grant DAO: This subDAO is tasked with issuing open grants and conducting strategic research for RFPs to prioritize grants. It comprises a team adept in grant management and technical product development. It is led by the Grant Lead.

  • Program Manager : As the leader of the Strategy Committee, the Program Manager represents AADAO publicly, advises on budgetary matters, and collaborates in setting roadmaps and KPIs for sub-DAOs. The GM’s role extends to supervising subDAOs, coordinating recruitment efforts, and developing internal controls and policies in conjunction with the Oversight Committee.

Migration to DAO DAO

As a fully funded Hub organization, AADAO wants to be as accountable and transparent as possible to the Hub’s governance. As such, we have taken the decision to migrate our operations onto DAO DAO. The migration is in progress with expected completion by January 2024.

This year, AADAO has funded the DAO DAO team to deploy their infrastructure on Neutron. We believe that in order to flourish, specialized DAOs like AADAO need the right set of tooling. A simple multisig is just not enough. A full suite of features is needed for DAOs to truly express their full potential, achieve internal controls and good governance, and create network effects. This includes treasury management capabilities and asynchronous transaction signing at the very minimum. DAO DAO can also dramatically lower the cost to entry for new teams that are looking to create their very first DAOs but are prevented from doing so because of the excessive complexity.

Legal Structure and Trustee

For AADAO to be an effective HUB aligned organization and mitigate risks, we would like to pursue two parallel tracks under the Renewal Mandate:

  • The first is a Guernsey Purpose Trust structure. The goal of the Purpose Trust is to mitigate risks of legacy nation state jurisdictional attacks upon Cosmos Hub community pool resources administered by AADAO in areas of regulatory, tax, liability, and AML and to prevent harm to $ATOM community and its contributors of such attacks.

  • The second is to continue to evolve AADAO’s internal protocols, building upon the initial prop 95 mandate, reflecting organic processes that have formed thru Contributor collaboration within the DAO over the past 9 months, and adding a Strategy Committee and multi-subDAO structure to support specialized teams forming within the DAO.

For architecture of the Guernsey Trust, legal advisor Collas Crill worked with AADAO Contributors to dovetail their host country rules with AADAO’s mandate, internal protocols, DAO DAO migration path, and desire to be 100% ATOM community owned. The status today is that the conceptual architecture has been designed with key terms defined, and with this on-chain proposal we are asking for the community to sign-off on this conceptual architecture and roadmap so that we can implement it via long-form docs.

A useful feature of the Guernsey Purpose Trust structure is that it is a limited legal wrapper leaving internal protocols of AADAO outside of the structure, thus preserving flexibility for the community to operate AADAO via its own decentralized governance. Moreover, the Purpose Trust does not have any shareholders, thus reinforcing the community-purpose of AADAO.

Professional Trustee

The structure requires a professional trustee to sign AADAO payments, and to perform KYC/AML checks to ensure compliance with sanctioned persons lists prior to such payments. After considering three options of professional trustees, we are recommending a 100+ year old firm, Saffrey Trust. After one-time setup costs, the annual cost to have Saffrey Trust as final signer on transactions from AADAO multisigs is expected ~ ÂŁ50k English pounds.
You can also check the Legal structure-specific FAQ @Better_Future prepared

SubDAO Roadmap

Grant subDAO

As the ATOM Accelerator DAO continues to evolve and refine its grant distribution strategy, we are committed to enhancing the impact of our funding initiatives. To achieve this, we are introducing a balanced approach to our grant program, dividing our total grant budget between two distinct but complementary parts: open grants and RFP/high priority grants.

a. Open Grants (Inbound): By maintaining our commitment to open grants, we ensure that fresh, diverse, and spontaneous projects have the opportunity to receive support, keeping the ecosystem open and dynamic. During our first term, we accepted open applications for a total duration of 6 months, in which we received 211 applications. Assuming a growth in the number of applications of 50-100% in year 2, we expect AADAO to process a total of 600-800 applications for the 2024 year.

b. RFP and High Priority Grants (Outbound): In contrast, our RFP (Request for Proposals) and high added-value grants will take a more targeted and strategic approach. This outbound segment will focus on addressing specific challenges and opportunities identified by AADAO as we work in collaboration with the ATOM community. To ensure a successful planning and execution, AADAO is enhancing its research & technical capabilities. We will be recruiting a Technical Product Manager and a full-time Developer to our team.

Below are a few example of targeted, high value RFPs that could benefit the entire AEZ:

  • In collaboration with Stride, initiate a partnership between the Hub-Stride and MakerDAO to include stATOMs into DAI collaterals. This would add ATOM staking rewards to the MakerDAO and broaden their asset diversification.
  • In collaboration with Noble, expand into Real World Assets (RWA) tokenization that could have value correlated to Cosmos’ & ATOM success
  • Expand ATOM liquidity outside of Cosmos by:
    • Creating partnerships with money markets in ETH L1&L2s to include ATOM as collateral;
    • Creating partnerships with ETH and SOL foundations to create a long term agreement to exchange token reserves (treasury swap).

Hub Value Deals

As representatives of the Hub, AADAO sees an opportunity to bring value share or airdrops back to the Hub community pool. As we generate value streams for the Hub community pool, we propose to reserve 20% of those value streams for AADAO’s own treasury. With this model, the interests will be fully aligned and AADAO will drive value for the Hub community pool while reducing its reliance on funding from the Hub community pool.

Two common deal structure scenarios include:

  • Value Sharing: The Hub community pool receives a share of the grantee’s value flows for a specified time period. Eg. in 2023, AADAO negotiated for a 33% share of Metamask IBC swap flows back to the Hub community pool as part of the Mystic Labs grant.
  • Equity and/or Token Awards: A partner or grant project may provide a portion of its equity or token distribution to the Hub community pool, allowing the Hub community to participate in the organization’s long-term success. Eg. in 2023, AADAO negotiated for 42M NTRN of the unclaimed Neutron token airdrop to flow back to the Hub community pool (now worth $22M) to solidify the relationship between the Hub and Neutron.


  • Youssef Amrani 100% FTE. (Program Manager and Strategy Committee Lead). Co-founder of AADAO and also serves on the Economic Committee of the IST stablecoin. McGill University graduate in International Business and Finance.

  • Dilan Asatekin 50%FTE (Grant Sub-DAO). Founder of Imperator.

  • Damien Bonello 35% FTE. (Oversight Committee). Protocol Specialist and Governance Lead for Simply Staking. He holds a background in Finance and Economics.

  • Riley Edmunds 15% FTE (Strategy Committee). Co-founder Stride Labs and ex-Bridgewater associate. He was the head of machine learning research at Berkeley.

  • Better Future 100% FTE (Grant subDAO, Strategy Committee member). Co-founder of AADAO with a background in finance, BD, marketing, engineering management, R&D, seed investing, grants, and strategy. Doctorate from Stanford University.

  • Delisse Gamboa 50% FTE (AADAO assistant). Formerly assistant at Delphi Digital.

  • Facundo Medica 35% FTE. (Developer, Grant subDAO). Core Dev at Binary Builders.

  • Xavier Meegan 50% FTE(Grant subDAO). Chief Investment Officer at Chorus One.

  • Patricia Mizuki 35% FTE (Oversight Committee). Former PwC auditor with 10+ years in audit, risk management and process improvements.

  • Reena Shtedle 100% FTE. (Grant subDAO). Web3 native with an academic background in Math, CS, and Social theory. Held key roles at Paradigm Research and Citadel.one where she co-founded and served as CBDO and DevRel.

  • Joni Z 100% FTE (Grant subDAO). Co-founder of educational Blockchain Insight Group.

Budget and Compensation

As AADAO continues to evolve and expand its impact, strategic financial management remains a cornerstone of our operations. The budget for the upcoming period is designed to ensure effective allocation of resources, with a keen focus on sustainability. A key aspect of this is our commitment to managing our treasury with the utmost diligence, particularly in the face of market volatility. This approach not only safeguards our assets but also ensures that we can honor our financial commitments to grantees and partners in a timely and reliable manner.
We are also mindful of the dynamic nature of our operations and the crypto market at large. Therefore, any amount in excess of the requested dollar funding will be judiciously rolled over to the subsequent year.

Finally, in keeping with our commitment to adaptability and efficient use of resources, the timing of our next funding proposal is not set in stone. We will base the decision to seek additional funding on the actual financial needs of AADAO, rather than adhering to a rigid 12-month cycle.

Operational Budget (note 1)

Treasury Summary as of Nov 25, 2023
AADAO Assets:
63,422 stATOM valued at 753,000
70,457 ATOM valued at 669,341
1,269,000 USDC valued at 1,269,000
Sub-total $2,691,341
(minus) Existing grant commitments (2,039,455)
Opening Balance for January 2024 $651,886
2024 Budget in USD
Grant subDAO:
Open Grants allocation 4,000,000
RFP grant allocation 4,000,000
Operational expenses:
AADAO Salaries (note 2) 973,000
Oversight Committee salaries 132,000
Marketing 175,000
Professional trustee annual fee 50,000
Legal fees 30,000
Events - Travel and lodging 50,000
Total budgeted costs $ 9,410,000
(minus) opening balance (651,886)
Total amount requested $ 8,758,114
At current ATOM price of $10 875,811 ATOM
(plus) ATOM Alignment Allocation 100,000 ATOM
Total ATOM requested 975,811 ATOM

Note 1: While AADAO’s pilot mandate ended in early November 2023, much of the team has continued to work through the month of November and December on milestone monitoring, multisig payments, and grantee administration in order to sustain the professional presence of the DAO. While team members realize they are doing this work at their own risk in the event this renewal proposal is unsuccessful, if it is successful, the DAO will retroactively compensate team members who were engaged in the period of work between the two proposals.

Note 2: Compensation brackets

  • Program Manager and Strategy Committee member $75 to $95 per hour
  • Technical/developer member $45 to $65 per hour
  • Reviewer committee member $35 to $55 per hour
  • Administrative member $15 to $20 per hour

Note 3: The funding from the on-chain proposal will go to AADAO’s original multisig made of 7 members (which has different constituents than the Strategy Committee) until we complete our migration to DAO DAO. The funds will be transferred to the Strategy Committee as soon as AADAO has fully onboarded on DAO DAO. The Strategy Committee must have at least 5 members before it can receive the funds.

Performance and Retention

AADAO plans to distribute up to 100,000 ATOMs across its team as part of an ATOM Alignment Allocation. This allocation plan is multi-dimensional, focusing on performance and retention of key talent and is described here. The bonuses are neither automatatic nor guaranteed, and are subject to review of Strategy Committee and Oversight.

Suggested Timeframe

Proposal Timeline

  • Forum Discussion: from November 25th to December 15th, 2023
  • On-chain governance voting: From December 15th to December 29th, 2023

Come talk to us between November 28th, 2023 and December 7th, 2023

Calendly Curious_J (Joni)
Calendly Youssef

Appendix A - Mitigation Plan

Mitigation Plans in the Event of a Non-Funding Voting Result

In the event that the ATOM community rejects our proposal to fund our next chapter, grant milestone payments and grant due diligence will need resolving. There is currently an outstanding $2M in grant milestone payments to be made. These options could be considered:

  • Option A - The Hub via governance instructs the multisig to issue all grant milestones immediately.
  • Option B - The Hub via governance notifies all grantees that no milestones will be paid.
  • Option C - Grantees individually apply to the Hub for the release of their milestones payments.
  • Option D - A minimum-viable skeleton team from AADAO distributes the grant milestone payments on a monthly basis. Multisig signers would meet once per month to distribute. Member(s) of the review or oversight committee would conduct the necessary grant due diligence and provide updates to the ATOM community with support from a technical adviser.

Option D ensures that:
a) the Hub only makes payments that hit the milestones;
b) funded grant projects receive the support to complete their work;

c) does not lead to a number of on-chain funding proposals from grantees that public governance will need to evaluate to ensure the milestones are met.

The Hub governance would also decide what to do with the 450k ATOM/stATOM that AADAO has custody of on Astroport. The multisig is willing to perform these tasks at no cost until such time as a trustless solution is available or instructed otherwise by the Hub’s governance.

In the event that funding is discontinued, then AADAO will submit an initial proposal on the forum (based on option D) and put the proposal on chain in the new year to ensure that payments for grant milestones can be made in January 2024. If the subsequent proposal is also rejected, AADAO will return the entirety of its assets to the community pool and discharge itself from further obligations.

Governance votes

The following items summarize the voting options and what it means for this proposal:

By voting YES, you indicate support for funding AADAO and the release of 975,811 ATOM.
By voting NO, you do not support this proposal in its current form and refuse to fund the AADAO.
By voting NOWITHVETO, you express that you consider this proposal malicious or harmful and would like to see depositors penalized by revocation of the deposit, which contributes towards an automatic â…“ veto threshold.
By voting ABSTAIN, you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal but want to contribute to the quorum.



Thank you for your detailed proposal and the efforts you’ve put into advancing the Cosmos ecosystem. Your dedication to fostering growth and innovation is commendable. As I consider the proposal, I have a few questions that would help in better understanding and evaluating the plan:

  1. Could you please elaborate on how the DAO’s overhead is justified in terms of efficiency and added value compared to regular spending proposals?
  2. What steps can be taken to ensure greater transparency and public involvement in the DAO’s review and decision-making processes?
  3. How does the DAO plan to address the centralization risks within the Cosmos ecosystem, and what incentives could be introduced to encourage proposals that focus on validator set decentralization?
  4. In light of the concerns regarding regional bias in project funding, what measures are being proposed to ensure impartiality and fairness in the selection process?
  5. Can you provide a more detailed breakdown of the operational costs associated with the proposed extension, and how do you ensure these are in the best interest of the Cosmos community?
  6. What specific benefits to the community can be expected from the DAO’s activities, and how will these align with the strategic objectives of the Cosmos ecosystem?
  7. What specific measures are being implemented to ensure efficient and transparent management of operational costs for the upcoming funding period?

Looking forward to your response.


We support this. As others have said, thank you for stewardship of the Hub. Love seeing the forward progress.



before we giv furhter 10.000.000$ in the hands of the AA Team, i request more transparency on

  1. Teams Spending: This should be detailed availibale on the Website, how much was spend for what
  2. Detailed breakdown of income of the team members, (per person with Linked In Profile), planed working hours and an agreement that in case they getting paid a salary of 10k$ per month, that they work only and exclusive for AA and not on other projects.
  3. More transparency of the fundings. The AA Website is missing significant transparency in trems of fundings. No TX showing transfers to wallets, no Real Names of receivers, it seems that we give thousend of USD to unknown persons. This should make sure that we fund real persons and lastly
  4. that we dont have a conflict of intresst, therefore we need to have more infomration behind the teams and persons receiving funds.
  5. a more detailed milestone payout for future fundings shall also be implemented.

Here are two example for intransparency:
80.000$ - 32.000$ issued Fund - No Website, No Names no tracable progress
Cosmos SDK Module Registry

250.000$ - 132.000 issued Fund - A Website with nearly no information who the team is, No Names no tracable progress

For a request of 10m$, i guess that is the minimum in transparency which should be delivered.


I believe that most of your questions can be addressed by referring to the content available at 2023 IMPACT REPORT. By comparing this transparency report with industry standards, it becomes evident that solid efforts have been made by the AADAO team considering this was their first year of existence.


Thanks for the link, i will read it in the next days.
So far, i see that we do not have the necessary team transparency,

  • would be good to add for all Team Members real names and
  • linked in profiles as well as
  • current engagement in other projects to make sure that we dont have any conflict of interest.
    It seems that it is also missing about the payment of team members, how much does everyone get for how much effort they deliver per week/month.

On the project site, this does no delivery what i have requested. Not all projects have a link and if there is a link, you will not really find any useful information about the team (Names, linked in prfils - conflict of interest!!!) or the stats of the deliverable. Further: no TX about transfer of tokens of the paid funds. Have this funds realy paid to them? Ore hev they been send somewhere else?


I have some discomfort as AADAO become institutionalized.

How is the team thinking about changes in team composition over the term? Does the General Manager have discretion to remove someone from the team at any time? Is the general manager effectively AADAO CEO?

I’d also like to see how the AADAO intends to balance building legal infrastructure like a legal entity that can hold equity in trust to the Cosmos Hub vs executing investments etc vs incubating and accelerating promising teams.


I shared this proposal with my business partner and he said, “There’s nothing I can see in that long list of potential things to do that has a clear outcome in mind other than trying to influence the supply and demand. It’s disappointing. I really wish there was innovation happening instead of constantly mistaking motion for progress.”

I’m not sure i agree with him, but wanted to share and provide more well-rounded feedback.



  1. Legal Structure

You received tens of thousands of dollars in your first year to establish a legal wrapper and chose a Guernsey trust? You should refund all the money you received for it.

A Guernsey Trust is inappropriate for any self-described DAO because of its highly centralized organization. Moreover, Guernsey trusts are weak legal wrappers that offer very little tax clarity and virtually no tax advantages in any jursidiction—and (for that very reason) they do not require $50,000+ to establish… It is shameful to propose this as your DAO’s legal structure after a year of work and inspires no confidence in your due diligence or ability to identify appropriate vehicles for advancing the Hub.

  1. subDAO Roadmap

This is just a wishlist of things with basically no actionable items. “Streamline integrations and partnerships,” “raise ATOM awareness with investors,” “bring revenue and airdrops back to the ATOM community pool”—you provide no metrics you want to achieve and no standards by which your work can be judged. Most of these will be occur simply by another bull run regardless of what you do.

You write:

As Growth SubDAO generates value streams for the Hub community pool, the subDAO proposes to reserve 20% of those revenues for its own treasury.

Until AADAO has repaid ALL of the grant money forwarded it by the Community Pool, neither it nor its subDAOs should retain ANY of the revenue—not 20%, not 2%, none. The claim that this “aligns interests” means you have no respect for the Hub funding you and should not be directing the Hub’s development. You should plan to repay the Hub its principal plus an interest rate for the risk it assumes in lending you money before AADAO and its subDAOs are allowed any claim to revenue.

  1. AADAO Team

I see no meaningful means for community participation or oversight of this DAO. The structure of AADAO should stand independently of the people running it, and those people should be elected by the Atom community separate from implementing an AADAO structure—not bound to any particular predetermined group of individuals.

  1. Budget and Compensation

Compensation of $625,000 (Grant subDAO with 3 listed employees, averaging $208,000 each) + $430,000 (Growth with 4 employees, averaging $107,000 each) + $96,000 (Oversight with 2 employees, averaging $48,000 each) is more than $1.1 MILLION in compensation for 14 people. Although it is not broken out in the budget, there is a subsequent claim that ~25,000 ATOM (at what USD value?) will be used so that “the Strategy Committee [of three employees, some with appointments on multiple subDAOs, averaging $80,000 each] will be compensated”—where does this come from?

Although the proposal claims that the 20% cut of revenue for Growth would make AADAO autonomous, there is no indication whether that revenue will be used to further supplement the proposed salaries. I would prefer that such revenue, after the principal plus interest has been repaid, be barred from any compensation payments to any AADAO member to preserve the DAO’s integrity and the Hub’s full sovereignty over this subDAO.

It is important to open up the staffing of AADAO and remove preselected individuals from the implementation so that AADAO can be competitive on its operational costs and avoid the perception of giving appointments to insiders, friends of friends, etc.


Hi Prometheus, updating a full file of all grant’s distributed so far soon. The report should have hyperlinks to the transaction hashes of all payments sent in the numbers with each of them having a memo for the specifics of the payment.

Let me know if there’s anything else you would like on the batch 1-7 distributions in the meantime :slight_smile:

1 Like


I also would like to see all funded projects, best with link to their Github.

I had this thread here in the forum recently:

No reply, which is a bit sad, as in other ecosystems like Ethereum or Solana games are booming, in Cosmos we don’t even have integration for Unity or Unreal engine. Which is no surprise, because we don’t even have C# integration. We need these interfaces so that all kind of application (mobile, desktop, game consoles etc.) can interact with Cosmos blockchains. We only have CosmJS which is nice for websites, but everything else seems to be totally neglected.

I tried to find out why games are neglected and found out that this is not restricted to games but also everything else (apps).
We (CrowdControl) have then build CosmCS ourselves (GitHub - DecentralCardGame/cosmcs: A C# client library for cosmos-sdk blockchains) and we asked for a grant from AADAO. We did not get an explanation why we were rejected. We only asked for a small sum (20k), since we have already build it for ourselves and this grant request was to make it available for everyone and not just our project. Rejecting us is fine, if this is done by someone else anyway, but after asking many individuals who are very active in the Cosmos ecosystem, nobody could point me to anyone building these integrations. Needless to say other projects (Ethereum, Solana, Immutable…) have those integrations.

So maybe here I can get an answer:
What is the plan for end-user applications? Why are such fundamental developer libraries ignored?


Agree on C# integration. Needed pronto.


Interesting that you are finally going to use a DAO framework like DA0_DA0, but how will the community be able to follow up? Will the existing UI at https://daodao.zone/ be able to show DAOs on Neutron? Who will pay for that and how much? Cause currently I can only see DAOs created on Juno network…

1 Like

Let’s assume the AADAO’s work this past months has been critical.

The question would be, would any of this have happened without the AADAO? Neutron airdrop transfer is probably the highest achievement from this report, I would seriously question if it would’ve happened without the DAO.

Is it necessary to grow it FURTHER? I would say no until we see tangible results from grants. I would even suggest that a growth DAO, if one is actually needed, should be independent of the AADAO.

How long are founding members continue to run it? Why will their salaries be INCREASED? It returns to the question of results, the DAO defining their own bonuses and kpis seems insane to me, ignoring the fact of a lack of any kind of ongoing governance and membership structure. “Accountable to the community” is a hollow promise when there is no External instrument to accountability. The Oversight commitee is useless if it was chosen by the people that they are overseeing.

Sadly, I hope this doesn’t pass and urge AADAO members to stop working since funding should’ve been sought after before the end of their funding term, this already speaks volumes about their planning.


Here is our return:

  • Growth team doesn’t looks like a growth team, it’s one of the most important task and there not a single person with verified experience (too simple to provide grant to some communities - growth is larger than that). Feels like more a BD or investment team?
  • SubDAO team seems to have too many numbers for not many reasons.
  • 99% of team members got already minimum 1 full time job (sometimes way more), that doesn’t seems to be a fully committed team for the result we are a lookign for a 10M funding.
  • Bonus too high (again-same as informal-its the type of thing you wanna extract from governments etc but you do exactly the same)
  • No plan shared (even minimalist- What growth? Which communities? Focus dev or b2c or b2b? Events?..)
  • Marketing budget is way too low for the amount requested and should be use mostly for growth/communities, not much for Atom Accelerator (them representing it in their different areas/countries)

Growth Dao & marketing should be independant Dao but both Dao can still work together.

Oversight committee should also be a Dao then be independant (which could be elected by people).

We funded some project $NTRN related.
Why aren’t we using those fund?
They are part of Cp and one of aadao great achievement. 10%, 20%?

We only need people full time working in aadao.

For the dYdX grants program for example, potential trustees or grantors submit their applications publicly in the forum and are then selected in a decentralized process. Why the AADAO doesn’t have such decentralized selection process? It doesn’t seem fair for the Cosmos community that some people are selected in a private and centralized way. Nothing against the proposed members, we think they are great, the issue is in the opaque selection process.

Maybe we should put together a competing Cosmos hub grants program with a truly decentralized selection process for the members of the grant program, giving a chance to everyone in the Cosmos community to submit their applications? For the AADAO we are talking about very large salaries. If there is interest about a competing and decentralized grants program with applications open for everyone to apply as members, let’s discuss about this, we will be happy to help and contribute to a more decentralized grants program


The AADAO planned to spend ~12% of the total budget on operational costs, leaving 88% for grant recipients. In total, the AADAO received 588,000 ATOM (approximately $5.8M, of which 709,750 USD should have been allocated to operational costs).

According to their reports, in 2023, AADAO spent 831,506 USD on operational costs, which is 17% more than planned. Additionally, AADAO spent 1,842,546 USD on grants, which is 63% less than expected. Instead of the planned 12% of the total budget on operational costs, the hub spent 31%, 2.6 times more than anticipated.

When scrutinizing the financial reports, several questions arise:

  1. Why is there a business development position expenditure of around $60,000 in September that wasn’t accounted for in the 2023 planning?
  2. Why did AADAO allocate the majority of the funds ($40,000) for marketing or advertising last-minute in November?
  3. Why does the proposal state that AADAO achieved a 2.75x cash return when Neutron was initially funded by prop72 before AADAO existed?

Looking ahead to 2024: AADAO plans to spend $3,576,000 on operational costs, including growth subdao (25% of the budget). AADAO plans to allocate $8,000,000 + $2,691,341 for grants.

After reviewing this information, there is a lack of confidence that AADAO will be able to effectively distribute the requested grant amount. Instead, there are concerns that more funds will be spent on operational costs than initially planned.

In my opinion, AADAO should first demonstrate its capability to grant funds at the 2023 financial level and reduce operational costs before significantly increasing its request.


i’ve been supportive most of the time.

this time i won’t.

opaque hiring decisions
oversight committee too small, not diversified, not independant
the bonus is … self attributed, no KPIs currently, peformance should be measured by an independent entity.

now i believe this kind of DAO should be working 1 year, then 1 year without funding/active work and the community sees what the past grants REALLY and concretely bring, then end year 2 seek a second funding.

i’m sorry but here you give a handful weapons to your historical opponents.


To Tom’s point, as an organization exclusively financed through public resources, your recruitment methods and selection processes for expansion roles are obliged to adhere to practices that foster heightened transparency and accountability.

This necessitates, for instance, public notification of roles AADAO wishes to hire for; complete with detailed job descriptions, requirements, and an overview of the anticipated compensation structure.

This is standard practice of publicly funded organizations.

@Youssef @Better_Future I suggest you share:

  • JDs and comp for every DAO/SubDAO member
  • publish any FT/PT contract commitments current/future members have with other organizations/projects; and what is the availability of hours per month required for each role?

For new additions, are your selections final? Have you performed due diligence and necessary conflict checks?

Thank you for sharing the pre-preposal.