What has the price of Skips acquisition by the ICF to do with Osmosis buyout with the CP (plus mint)?
Doesnât make sense. You can ask if theyâve been worth their money, sure, but itâs not like theyâve been acquired with CP funds.
The community wasnât mad interested for 15 months to knowing the exact amount of money theyâve gotten, so why now?
Apples and oranges.
Hi everyone,
Iâm new here, but Iâm not new to tech and am an OG cryptography guy. In 1998, back when the world was still figuring out how to download an MP3, my team and I were busy encrypting over a million songs in DES 56-bit for the first legal music streaming service, Rhapsody. At one point, I was responsible for more encrypted files than anyone else in the world. Iâm working on a new business model for a payment ecosystem that will use Cosmos, and I believe it offers a new approach to the current âCOSMOSISâ debate.
Reading through the proposal from @sunnya97 and the Osmosis Foundation, itâs clear we all share the same goal: making the Cosmos Hub the undeniable economic center of the interchain. @sunnya97, you are right that stack usage isnât enough; we need âlegibleâ value for ATOM.
However, as @Guinch_Roze and @artemkorchemniy have pointed out, a state-level merger brings massive technical debt and risks âlogic contaminationâ for the Hub. Iâd like to introduce a significantly different way to think about our ecosystemâs tokenomics: Multi-Tenant Collateral Anchoring (MTCA).
Instead of a merger, think of the Cosmos Hub as a Global Industrial Business Park:
-
The Hub (The Landlord): Provides the high-security âVaultâ (Staking/Security) and the âBilling Systemâ (Settlement). It doesnât need to own or manage the factories in the park; its value comes from being the secure ground they all sit on.
-
The Tenant (The Factory): Projects like Osmosis are Independent Factories. They keep their own brand, their own laboratory speed, and their own sovereignty.
-
The Braid (The Lease): Under MTCA, a tenant âbraidsâ its value to the Hub. By moving the OSMO token to the Hub as a native anchor, we eliminate the $550k/year âSecurity Taxâ (the inflation currently used to pay for a redundant validator set).
-
Industrial-Grade Safety: This architecture uses a State-Machine Firewall. If a factory (the DEX) has a bug, a Sovereign Circuit Breaker autonomously protects the Hubâs vault. We get the utility of the DEX without the Hub assuming its technical risks.
Grounding the Vision: The FOMO Proof of Concept I am building FOMO to be the first industrial-grade stress test for this model. My goal is to reach 10 million+ monthly transactionsâa target grounded in my experience scaling consumer apps like Rhapsody to 1 million+ active users.
In the FOMO model, we use a Cash-Secured PoA execution tier on the FOMO Prime chains. This allows us to scale to massive volumes without diluting a security token. We pay the Hub a âSettlement Rentâ for anchoring our value on the Hub (FOMO Gold), creating the Validator UBI the community is looking for, without the Hub needing to manage our operations.
@sunnya97, @ebuchman, and @Paddy_Mcâcould this âbraidedâ architecture offer a path where Osmosis survives as a profitable sovereign, while the Hub and ATOM become the high-revenue Landlord of the Interchain?
Iâll be in NYC March 16thâ18th and would love to stop by the Cosmos Labs offices to walk through the technical specs.
When ICF acquired Skip, Mag and Barry stayed on the team and continued to lead. In this acquisition, Sonny and core people arenât staying.
Also, this is a prop regarding spending Community Pool (that no one directly owns) funds to acquire Osmosis.
Weâre here to discuss the community pool spend. Not what the ICF or CL did or didnât do.
While this isnât specifically directed at your comment, it seems an argument people are trying to make is ICFâs operations have been questionable, therefore we should put more weight on Sunnyâs perspective.
I get it, we all love Osmosis. But I fail to see a strong connection between the sentiment on ICF and what this prop is saying. Other than CL expressing opposition and being the most prominent entity to do so.
Makes one wonder thoughâŚso if CL said they are in alignment to this prop, will people still be saying âoh, well, ICF did this back in the day, letâs question the validity of what they are saying â?
Something tells me the answer to this question is no.
I think a big question to takeaway from the âexodus of many teamsâ is probably very simply⌠âDo ATOM holders want to place all their eggs in one basketâ Does Cosmos Hub want an ecosystem that directly drives value to ATOM and takes initiative itself, or whether it is willing to rely entirely on the CL teamâs enterprise strategy to eventually produce value accrual.
On the current path, ecosystem development around ATOM and cosmos hub is zero, and in the short / medium term is on a death march. While there is real hope that CL teamâs enterprise efforts eventually bear fruit, it is not logical to place all eggs there⌠especially when the tradeoffs are low and the parallel efforts are totally feasible.
Over the past five years, relying on that approach (putting all eggs on ICF) has not been the right bet.
This proposal represents the Cosmos and ATOM community taking initiative now, firing up itâs ecosystem efforts and making its own fate with renewed ecosystem growth that can not only foster a traditional DeFi ecosystem but also equally an enterprise ecosystem.
Solana is doing this and winning the majority of the pie currently. Cosmos could be a key player in this race, but not with the current path.
The ecosystem and builders cannot be disregarded.
@AaronK - You make a good point. I think diversification is the key to a resilient ecosystem. The enterprise focus might be the right answer, but thereâs no reason to limit the options to just that one.
Read through the prop and the comments. TBH Cosmos Hub has needed a real native economic engine for a long time & yeah Osmosis in-house is the most logical way to get there.
Looking at how the broader industry is evolving, the most successful L1s have deep integrated liquidity right at their center. I mean sovereign chains are great for experimenting, but the Hub itself has been missing direct value capture.
But the numbers have to work for ATOM holders just as much as they work for OSMO holders. If that gets worked out, this is a no brainer.
I fully support the overall direction & will even willing to spread the word for support .
Right, but ironically this proposal is putting all CP eggs in one basket.
Iâve always wondered just how much money you and other devs have already made off of Osmosis. Shouldnât that be important information? Have you not been compensated well already? Itâs obvious that the Osmo team have contributed a ton to ecosystem, Iâm not arguing that, Iâm wondering how much money you all have already been paid for it. Is that public info?
And surprisingly enough, the osmo death march is here and wants a bailout. A dex that paid out rewards in the underlying token and ultimately failed because there wasnât enough demand to exceed the dumping. We want to yolo the community pool into this? Why would the fate of atom be any different from osmo in this scenario? Am I missing something?
If a merger is to take place, then this must be changed @AaronK @sunnya97 @JohnnyWyles
Well no itâs not, thereâs
- ~ $1m in USDC
- ~ $5m that governance has authority over that Osmosis will bring
- tokenomics that still delivers ATOM to the CP
- Immediate revenue that Cosmos Hub owns going forward
So how many atoms are left in the hubs CP?
The difference between ATOM or USDC doesnât matter, theyâre both assets within the CP meant to be used for ecosystem pursuits. If you believe the community pool should have more left in it, then a higher ratio of mint to CP can easily address that.
What is the value of assets that you believe should remain in the CP at all times?
I donât know why youâre arguing, you basically proved my point which is that the prop asks the CP to put all eggs in the basket.
Yes but in this case Iâd argue the âbasketâ is all of Cosmos DeFi, present and future.
- This statement is false in numerous ways
- Even if #1 were true, it is not the same argument because the CP is not all that is ATOM or Cosmos Hub.
Yeah, the CP needs to make a bet, and the Osmosis merge is not just a âhey this is a place to trade assetsâ. The merge is the only place to start any growth from, from there all doors open.
But even so, itâs still not all eggs on Osmosis.
- The Cosmos Hub Community Pool currently holds ~10.11M ATOM.
- This means approximately 85% of the required ATOM is already funded.
- The remaining ~1.75M ATOM represents ~0.35% of total ATOM supply.
- This is equivalent to less than two weeks of staking emissions.
Itâs not rocket science Aaron.
Spending all of the CPs Atoms on this prop and still needing 1.75M Atoms means that the whole CP (âEggsâ) is gone (in the âbasketâ).
Donât hang yourself up on my comparison but especially donât act like itâs not true.
I donât like this.
Only less than 2 weeks of inflation is the justification for this.
It doesnât change the fact that it is an example of governance overriding / undermining tokenomics. While structural inflation doesnât change, we are still potential voting ATOMs into existence.
Bad precedence to set.