[Proposal ##][DRAFT] Acquisition and Merger of Osmosis into the Cosmos Hub aka COSMOSIS

Hub Proposals Community Spend
21

Our Position

After full review, Cosmos Labs does not support this proposal in its current form.

At the outset, we would like to share our respect and admiration for the Osmosis team and their contributions to the Cosmos stack, and to the blockchain space at large.

We agree on the underlying principle: the Cosmos Hub should have a native liquidity venue to continue to service the ecosystem’s need for on-chain liquidity, power Skip:go, and expand the Hub’s ability to service new enterprise networks launching in Cosmos. A well-integrated DEX on the Hub is a legitimate strategic goal — and merging Osmosis with the Hub is one of many possible options to achieve that goal.

That said, we do not currently support the proposal in the current form, given our concerns on the proposed valuation, transaction structure or the sufficiency of the information currently provided to assess the proposal. Questions about Osmosis’s long-term product fit vs other solutions and the technical risks associated with deploying the Osmosis architecture on the Hub are also not addressed by this proposal.

Our response below explains what is missing and why it matters before any vote is held.

What the Community Is Being Asked to Approve

The proposal requests that the Cosmos Hub:

  • Deploy up to ~11.82M ATOM from the Community Pool and new minting, worth ~$21.6m at current prices.

  • Mint new ATOM to acquire Osmosis at a conversion rate based on a 30-day TWAP at the time of forum submission

  • Transfer IP ownership of Osmosis to OGP

  • Transfer ownership, and governance of the Osmosis DEX to Cosmos Hub governance

  • Assume responsibility for ongoing development, maintenance, and liquidity seeding

This would be the largest spend from the Cosmos Hub Community Pool in the Hub’s history. It would consume the entire Community Pool in addition to a net-new ATOM mint.

What “Yes” Means in its Current Form

A yes vote on this proposal directs the Hub to acquire an asset at a price defined by short-term market price ratio. It does not come with a negotiated acquisition price for a distressed asset, a defensible revenue multiple, payback analysis, or a mechanism that ties the OSMO-to-ATOM conversion to the performance of the merged protocol. Once the conversion window opens, the cost is fixed regardless of what happens to revenue or liquidity.

The OSMO-to-ATOM-conversion unlocks upon code deployment; before any liquidity migrates, before any revenue is confirmed on the Hub, and before the success of the integration can be assessed. The Hub bears all the downside risk with no mechanism for adjustment. Effectively, the ATOM holder community would be unlocking $20m+ of immediately sellable ATOM on a short term timeframe.

Issue 1: Osmosis TVL and Revenue are in Decline

The proposal cites Osmosis’s 2025 revenue of $5.5m as the primary justification for the acquisition cost. We believe the figure substantially overstates the sustainable, forward-looking revenue that will be available to the Hub after the merger. There are two reasons for this.

1a. Revenue Has Been in Consistent Decline
In the last 6 months, Osmosis’s revenue has been in constant decline, falling 67.4% m/m between November and December, 52.5% between December and January, and 30.3% between January and February. Total annualized revenue in the last 6 months is $3.29m. Adjusting downward for anomalous trading activity as a result of AtomOne speculation in October and November, annualized revenue over that period is likely less than $2.7m (Source: Datalenses). Assuming no further decline in revenues and ignoring all maintenance costs, it would still take the Hub over 8 years to recover its investment at the current cost.

That said, because revenue and TVL are on a downward trajectory and there are limited short-term options available to change that trajectory, we believe that actual steady-state revenue over the next 12-24 months will be significantly lower than historical revenue. This creates a substantial risk that acquiring Osmosis at the asking price will result in a long-term net loss for the Cosmos Hub.

1b. No Forward-Looking Revenue Framework & One-Time Windfall Events
The proposal provides no framework upon which to evaluate forward-looking revenue potential taking into account the revenue trend over the last 6-12 months. Without that framework, evaluation of Osmosis’s valuation occurs in a vacuum.

The 2025 revenue figure almost certainly includes extraordinary, non-recurring trading activity, including a large single-actor position conversion event in the ATOM / ATONE market in late 2025 that generated a temporary fee spike with no bearing on the business’ ongoing earning capacity. Revenue figures used for valuation must be normalized to exclude such events.

Issue 2: Liquidity Migration is the Central Risk

In order to achieve a successful outcome, the technical migration must go well and, importantly, a majority of liquidity currently on Osmosis must migrate to the Cosmos Hub. This is because:

  1. Without substantial liquidity on the Hub, aggregators and APIs will continue to prefer other liquidity venues (including Osmosis Legacy) over the Hub. Fees collected by the legacy chain on an ongoing basis will continue to accrue to the legacy chain and be subject to OSMO governance, putting the Hub in competition with itself and making ATOM recapture of those fees uncertain.

  2. Deploying a DEX without liquidity on the Cosmos Hub can be done far more efficiently and cheaply with other solutions. The primary value Osmosis brings to the Hub is its existing user base and liquidity.

As it stands, the likelihood that liquidity migrates from the Osmosis chain deployment to the Cosmos Hub deployment is unclear. Active liquidity providers on Osmosis have an incentive to stay deployed on the Osmosis chain so long as trading volume on the legacy deployment remains higher. Convincing those LPs to migrate will likely require substantial additional incentives in ATOM, or a large loan of ATOM to market makers that can facilitate liquidity along spreads that are competitive with the Osmosis legacy deployment. Neither is accounted for in this proposal.

Despite the fact that the bulk of the value is predicated on a successful liquidity migration, the OSMO > ATOM conversion unlocks as soon as the codebase is deployed on the Cosmos Hub without regard for whether any liquidity migration occurs. We believe that this structure does not properly align the incentives of the Osmosis and Cosmos Hub communities.

The proposal should provide a clear path to migrate liquidity to the Cosmos Hub, with any incentive plans transparently outlined. We also believe that the proposal should include earn outs predicated on the successful migration of liquidity to the Hub and overall earned revenue. If liquidity does not meet predefined thresholds, the acquisition value should be reduced accordingly.

Issue 3: The Acquisition Cost is Excessive

As we’ve stated in the past, we believe that any proposal which requests substantial community pool funding should demonstrate clear growth potential for the Cosmos Hub and ATOM that is proportional to the value being requested. Here, the valuation framework used (30-day market price TWAP) does not reflect a reasonable cost given the significant risk taken on by the Hub as a result of this acquisition.

As proposed, the acquisition price is nearly $23m and would cost the entire community pool plus a net-new mint of ATOM, an unprecedented resource expenditure for the Cosmos Hub that would significantly hamper its ability to invest in other growth initiatives. For the value provided, we do not believe that this is a worthwhile investment for the Hub to make.

3a. A 30-Day TWAP is Not an Acquisition Valuation Method

A token price ratio reflects market sentiment at a given point in time. It does not account for sustainable cash flows the Hub would receive after the merger, the risk of the migration, the costs of ongoing development, or the trajectory of revenue. In conventional acquisition contexts, including those within crypto, price must be anchored to verified trailing revenue, discounted at an appropriate rate for risk, with structured earnouts used to bridge certain uncertainty. Anchoring the headline ask to a TWAP at proposal submission means the Hub is likely paying peak prices for a highly volatile and declining asset.

3b. Post-Migration Revenue May Be a Fraction of Headline Figures
A substantial amount of liquidity may be lost in the migration process, and steady-state revenue for a Cosmos Hub deployment of Osmosis could be as low as $30,000 - $100,000 per month on average in the first two years as a result of that capital loss and ongoing fragmentation of value flow through the Osmosis legacy deployment.

With that in mind, this is an example of some possible valuation frameworks for Osmosis assuming various revenue multiples.
Scenario Revenue Multiple Base Value
Conservative $450K (post-migration) 3x $1.35m
Base Case $1.2m 4.5x $5.4m
Optimistic $3m (with growth) 7.5x $22.5m

As such, we believe a more reasonable acquisition price to be approximately $5m, subject to milestones for liquidity migration and revenue earned over the course of the first two years.

A Note on Valuation: How to Think About What Osmosis is Worth
The most intuitive way to evaluate any acquisition is simple: how long does it take to get your money back?

If the Hub pays $23m and receives $3m in revenue per year, the raw payback period is approximately 8 years; and this is without accounting for maintenance costs, inflation, and capital risk. If the actual post-migration is $1.5m per year, the payback period exceeds 15 years. Neither figure represents a sound use of community funds.

Scenario Analysis: What Are the Hub’s Likely Returns?
Scenario Annual Revenue Payback at $23M
Proposal’s best case $5.5m ~4 years Requires no revenue decline post-merger
Recent 6-month trend ~$2.7m ~8.5 years Before migration losses or maintenance costs
Post-migration (base) ~$1.5m ~15 years 50% liquidity migration assumed
Post-migration (conservative) ~$600K >38 years 30% migration; sustained decline

How The Proposal Can Be Improved

We believe that the community should be open to a defensible deal. To get there, we need a shared foundation for relevant and reliable information. For example, the following additional disclosures from the Osmosis team are the starting point for a more responsible collective evaluation.
What Why
More detailed information on the scope of the technical migration, including engineering work required, operational risks, and implementation timeline with accountable milestones Ensures the community understands the complexity, cost, and execution risk of the migration
Defined liquidity migration thresholds and the incentive budgets required to achieve them Clarifies what level of liquidity transfer is expected and how it will be incentivized
A price point closer to $3-5m supported by milestone-based payments tied to liquidity and revenue migration Aligns the acquisition cost with demonstrated performance and reduces downside risk
Full treasury and balance sheet of both the Osmosis protocol and OGP Required to calculate Enterprise Value rather than relying solely on revenue figures
A five-year forward revenue model with stated assumptions and sensitivity analysis Enables the community to evaluate the long-term sustainability and payback period

Suggested Changes to the Proposal

Suggestion Reason
Tie the OSMO-to-ATOM conversion rate to liquidity migration milestones, not just code deployment Prevents full payout before economic value is delivered
Define a minimum liquidity threshold (e.g., 60% TVL migration within 12 months) below which conversion is reduced Protects the Hub from paying for assets that do not migrate
Include earnout provisions for revenue targets, eg Year 1, Year 2 etc. Ties payment to proof of revenue value
Cap upfront conversion at a conservative revenue multiple and defer the remainder to earnouts Aligns cost with verified performance rather than projections
Provide a clear technical migration timeline with defined milestones and accountability Technical scope is currently underspecified

Conclusion

Cosmos Labs does not support this proposal in its current form. That position is not permanent, it is conditional on the information and structural changes described above.

We urge the Osmosis team to engage constructively with these requests, and the broader community to withhold advancing this proposal to an on-chain vote until additional disclosures have been made. We at Cosmos Labs commit to reviewing any revised proposal promptly and in good faith.

The Cosmos Hub Community Pool belongs to ATOM holders. An expenditure of this magnitude requires reliable and relevant information to consider it. That is not a high bar, it is the minimum standard for responsible governance.

19 Likes
22

Let’s call this proposal what it actually is: a bailout. Not a strategic acquisition, not a bold vision for the Cosmos Hub — a bailout of a declining chain, dressed up in the language of consolidation and opportunity.

The Community Pool is not a rescue fund

The Cosmos Hub Community Pool exists to fund the growth and development of the Hub itself, not to absorb the failures of third-party projects. We already set a bad precedent with the Stargaze migration. Doing it again with Osmosis would confirm a deeply worrying pattern: that projects which fail to find their footing can simply offload their problems onto ATOM holders. This is not a sustainable or healthy dynamic for the ecosystem.

The risks are real and unaddressed

The proposal presents $5.5M in annual revenue as a strong argument for the merger. But nothing guarantees that this figure holds after the migration. Volume follows liquidity, and liquidity follows incentives. There is no guarantee that liquidity providers will migrate to the Hub. There is no guarantee that market makers will follow. If even a fraction of current liquidity fails to transition, those revenue projections become meaningless.

More importantly, there is no lockup mechanism mentioned for the Osmosis team. This means they would receive ATOM — a significantly more liquid asset than OSMO — with no obligation to hold it. Dumping ATOM is structurally easier than dumping OSMO given the deeper liquidity on ATOM markets. This is not a theoretical risk. It is a predictable outcome given what we have already observed.

Osmosis failed on its own terms

Osmosis has had years and substantial resources to build a sustainable, self-sufficient protocol. Like Stargaze before it, it failed to find and retain its market. That is a failure the Osmosis team and its stakeholders should own. The OSMO token has shed the vast majority of its value, in part because the team spent years selling into the market. Now, as options narrow, the proposal asks ATOM holders to provide an exit. That is not alignment. That is extraction.

Conclusion

The Cosmos Hub should invest in building, not in rescuing. If this merger were truly a strategic opportunity, it would have been proposed from a position of strength — on both sides. The timing and the terms tell a different story.

My vote is NO.

3 Likes
23

I don’t think we should assume the entirety of OSMO held is going to exit, the current OSMO holders are holders after ~5 years. I’d actually bet the opposite is true, resulting in more long term ATOM holders.

At the same time, Osmosis is bringing ~5m in existing assets to be spent on growing Cosmos Hub.

The ask is around half a day’s volume of ATOM, or ~2 months of inflation (ATOM is at 10% inflation, with 16% staking apr currently).

And I think if zooming out further and comparing it to other costs in the ecosystem, its even smaller

1 Like
24

I think these 4 points are very understandable, but Cosmos is in a sink or swim scenario. Currently, there is zero growth or path for ATOM and the Cosmos Hub.

We’ve seen many notable teams leave the Cosmos in just the last few months, and there are more gearing to leave as well.

Initiative needs to be taken asap and I dont think we can assume a path for ATOM and the Cosmos Hub will just will its way into existence otherwise.

4 Likes
25

I am categorically against the proposed merger in its current form, especially from the perspective of converting osmo into atom at such an unfavorable rate. It looks like an attempt to “save” the Cosmos Hub at the expense of osmo holders who have supported the project for years and taken the risks. Let’s break this down point by point.

First, I invested in osmo at prices of $1–2, believing in the independent development of osmosis as a leading DEX in the Cosmos ecosystem. I did not buy the token so that it could later be forcibly converted into atom at a rate that locks in huge losses for long-term holders. The average entry price for many of us ranges from $0.10 to $1–2 per osmo, while the proposed rate of 0.0355 atom for 1.998 osmo (effectively ~60 osmo for 1 atom) is a clear loss. It appears that the team and insiders simply “cashed out” on ordinary investors like us, and now they present “migration” as a form of rescue. This is not evolution - it is a betrayal of trust. If any conversion is to happen, it should only occur at a 1:1 rate with an immediate snapshot of current holdings in order to preserve the value for those who supported the ecosystem.

Second, a full merger of osmosis with the Cosmos Hub carries enormous risks for the entire ecosystem. Formally, the DEX would become part of atom, which will inevitably lead to disputes: conflicts of interest between the security/interoperability priorities of the Hub and the risks/innovations of DeFi. This could slow development, increase technical debt, and even lead to legal issues - since any vulnerability in the DEX would now directly affect atom. Why risk the sovereignty of osmosis, which has proven its value since 2021?

Instead, I propose developing both tokens in parallel on the same platform. osmosis could become a separate “branch” or module of the Cosmos Hub, but with its independence preserved. For example:

  • Trading rewards on the exchange (fees) could be distributed equally between atom and osmo, proportional to the current exchange rate, regardless of which currency (osmo or atom) the fee was paid in. This would create incentives for both tokens and preserve liquidity.
  • At the end of each quarter, a fixed portion of the accumulated osmo could be automatically converted into atom and directed to the Hub’s protection pool. This would ensure gradual integration without forced exchange and without losses for holders.

Such an approach would allow both sides to combine their strengths without destroying osmo, preserve innovation, and minimize risks. I vote NO on the current proposal and urge other holders to consider the long-term consequences.

I support the Cosmos and osmo ecosystems, but as separate entities.

2 Likes
26

This would actually be more around 5-6 ppl.

Infra & Maintenance & Ecosystem - 3 ppl (Jason, Alessandro, JohnnyW)

Growth - ~2 ppl (Myself + OGP team)

Marketing - 1 person (David)

The priority would be more than maintaining the current system.

Growth opportunities are actually quite abundant, but they haven’t really been pursued for the Cosmos Hub… and at the same time, having a base DEX tends to be table stakes. However, leverage is key, so pushing these from a siloed chain (Osmosis) would be poor leverage. Pushing these from a top 50 chain makes more sense.

There are substantial misses in coordinating with Ethereum & Solana to go pursue, RWAfi is booming on other chains (and can be grown for Cosmos, especially if the Enterprise pursuits gains traction), and even networking + working with external teams on interop’ing their products over to Cosmos.

The leverage from consolidation matters most here. Growth must absolutely be pursued and the Cosmos ecosystem & community should not get neglected.

3 Likes
27

The point is not whether the OSMO community will sell or not the ATOM, the point is using the whole ATOM community pool to allow full exit for OSMO holders with zero slippage. Again, this is of course great for the Osmosis community but I don’t see the benefit for the ATOM community, there are several better uses of the community pool funds

You are talking about general not about community pool especifically, to accumulate around 10M ATOM in the community pool it took a very long time and these funds can be used in different ways bringing value to the Cosmos hub. Fully emptying the community pool and requiring even more ATOM to facilitate the exit for OSMO holders I don’t think it is the best use of the community pool funds for the ATOM community

1 Like
28

It’s not fully emptying the pool, there’s still over $1m in USDC

Though, would you propose a pure mint instead of using the pool’s ATOM?

1 Like
29

I don’t think that’s a relevant argument. It’s a buyout and not a trade, so the OSMO holders would be entitled to get the full value of their tokens in ATOM – I don’t see them as exiting, as the majority will likely (hopefully) just become atom stakers.

The actual question is to determine the source of the ATOM since as was pointed out multiple times, emptying the CP is not a viable option for the Hub.

Cosmos Labs made solid points so let’s see where this goes.

30

I’m gonna vote against this proposal

If you want to preserve Osmosis, then at the very least, offer fair terms to the people who have been supporting you all along and continue to do so.

All thoughts here:

31

What do you mean? According to the proposal it is emptying the whole ATOM community pool plus additionally requiring even more ATOM. And the value of the ATOM community pool at current prices is around $20M, so even if $1M was left that is basically emptying the pool also

I am not proposing neither using the full ATOM community pool nor minting. I propose and support what Cosmos labs said above in a very detailed message

This is not a private equity buyout because the equity (tokens) are fully liquid and tradeable not like in a private company, just there is no liquidity for a market buyout since the slippage would be huge to exit around $20M. The ATOM community pool is basically being used as a counterparty buyer of around $20M with zero slippage. You say they would be entitled to get the full value of their tokens, but that value is relative if the trading volume is so little that only a fraction can be exited at the current value or price meaning the real value would be less. And yes agree that Cosmos Labs made very detailed and solid points and fully support their approach

32

Hi all, Derek from the OGP here. As a longtime Osmosis contributor and fan of Cosmos, I wanted to share my perspective:

A strong DEX is the foundation of any on-chain ecosystem. Osmosis is clearly a premier product and brand in Cosmos, and it’s reflected in the product itself, which is a smooth, easy experience comparable to any of the premier DEXs on other chains. With the foundation of a strong DEX formally aligned with the Hub, the community can rally around a real value-generating app that can become the foundation for a thriving ecosystem. But getting to that end state of a thriving ecosystem requires upfront investment, whether it’s time or money, and the ROI here is clearly positive. We think this collaboration would be a win-win and encourage the community to chime in.

From the OGP’s standpoint, we are excited to support this collaboration, should governance approve it, anyway we can. Whether that’s seeding market-makers for liquidity bootstrapping to ensure competitive spreads, working on specific growth strategies, or funding an ecosystem good, we are aligned on the ultimate mission of helping drive value to the ATOM token.

3 Likes
33

This is going to end up like the Stargaze one probably. There’s no realistic price that will satisfy Osmo token holders.

34

Hey, Trevor from BitBadges. I am fully in support of this proposal, but I am not a validator so will refrain from commenting on any proposal specifics.

One idea that I would like to throw out there is to complement this proposal with a path for the BitBadges tokenization module to be deployed on the Hub as well. This can be a value-add for all parties and potentially be the missing piece to the puzzle.

How?

  1. As an exclusive module on the Hub purpose-built for assets, RWAs, payments, and tokenization with compliance at every level, the benefits are two-fold: a) Osmosis gets a clear path and infrastructure to onboard more assets directly to the DEX, more growth, more adoption and b) the Hub can instantly become a dedicated hub for enterprise-grade tokenization and payments. The infrastructure on the Hub would be complete for an institutional focused tokenization roadmap (DEX + tokenization/payments/RWA tooling) with everything Cosmos-aligned at the core (ATOM, IBC, Skip;Go, Osmosis DEX).

  2. Beyond asset tokenization, the liquidity that Osmosis could bring to the Hub + our Swiss-army knife module, this lays the groundwork for a developer ecosystem for anything from ATOM-based payment protocols to subscriptions to smart tokens to NFTs to custom stablecoins to custom cold-storage vaults / treasuries. All directly on the Hub.

  3. The barrier to development on the Hub for anything is drastically reduced from CosmWASM contracts to a no-code, API-like module with everything provided out of the box. Tokenize anything in 60 seconds and tap into any liquidity via Osmosis DEX + IBC. The full stack.

I wanted to chime in and offer this as a potential path forward to explore.

35

The idea of stronger alignment between Osmosis and the Cosmos Hub is interesting, especially if the goal is to improve value capture for ATOM.

However, the conditions proposed in the current version raise several concerns. The scale of the request relative to the Hub’s community pool, combined with the uncertainty around the actual migration of liquidity, makes the risk/reward balance difficult to evaluate for the Hub.

The topic is certainly worth exploring, as the Hub clearly needs more effective mechanisms to capture value generated across the ecosystem. Osmosis is an important piece of infrastructure in Cosmos, and it makes sense to discuss ways to better align its success with ATOM.

That said, in its current form the proposal feels quite aggressive and may benefit from further refinement to better align the interests of all parties involved and reduce the potential risks for the Hub.

Perhaps a more progressive or milestone-based approach (for example tied to liquidity migration, revenue, or adoption metrics) could help achieve this alignment while limiting the downside for the Hub?

2 Likes
36

So retail bears the risk and subsidizes a failed project that went from $10/coin down to pennies and devs get to take the money and run?

I hope the whole ecosystem dies. Do people actually buy any of this shit?

37

good point. cant say that osmosis is an enterprise solution. not that it lacks things. i cant really see it playing out though with the mission of cosmos labs..

PS. said that. and saw the answer from cosmoslabs.

PPS. As much respect as I had for Sunny, it does feel like trying to drop stock on the last seconds of its trading opportunity.

PPPS. not pro or against. currently undecided. watching the waves roll in

38

Based on Cosmos Labs response, it seems like this proposal did not get eyeballs on it in advance.

Or it did, and it was decided to post it anyways.

I’ll give the charitable view that this wasn’t circulated in advance. For a deal of this size, I’d expect Osmosis crew to fly out to NYC and efficiently propose the idea and get feedback from the biggest stakeholders before surfacing this raw (not fully developed) proposal to the community. Would have bought more goodwill to have the idea ironed out in private more. Perhaps the counter argument is to build ideas out in the public eye is healthy, but for something as sensitive as $21.6M from a community, I would hope that putting the best foot forward at introduction of the idea would involve preparing the proposal as much as humanly possible.

In summary, this is a brutal bear market. I wish the proposal and the stakeholder alignment building would have advanced further first. But it is what it is.

Eagerly awaiting v2, but realistically if there was a Polymarket bet, I don’t think this comes to the finish line without major concessions given that will be untenable to either sides. Both sides view themselves as incredibly valuable and in a position of strength.

Let’s see who is honest with themselves first.

3 Likes
39

I believe the proposed conversion rate undervalues Osmosis and should be reconsidered. A rate closer to 1.06 ATOM per OSMO would better reflect the real value Osmosis brings to the Cosmos ecosystem.

For years, Osmosis has been the primary liquidity hub for Cosmos assets. It is where most trading activity, liquidity, and price discovery in the ecosystem actually happen. Most importantly, Osmosis generates real revenue through trading fees, while the Cosmos Hub itself primarily operates as infrastructure that requires continuous funding and maintenance. In other words, Osmosis is one of the few parts of the ecosystem producing economic value, while the Hub mainly represents costs.

At the same time, the proposed conversion rate is based on a 30-day TWAP calculated during a deep bear market, when activity across DeFi is significantly depressed. Historically, DeFi infrastructure tends to be heavily undervalued during bear markets, especially when trading volumes and liquidity are low. Valuing a core liquidity engine of the ecosystem at this point in the cycle likely understates its long-term importance.

By integrating Osmosis into the Hub, ATOM would gain an already functioning DeFi engine with established liquidity, routing, and fee generation. This is not simply a technical merge - it is effectively transferring the ecosystem’s primary revenue-generating trading infrastructure into the Cosmos Hub.

For these reasons, a conversion rate closer to 1.06 ATOM per OSMO would better reflect both the economic contribution of Osmosis and its strategic importance to the future of the Cosmos ecosystem.

40

Now it’s obvious why OSMO was dumping. Insiders were likely selling their OSMO while planning this proposal.

1 Like