I agree with this conclusion, I just think you guys are talking past each other, both are right.
It is correct that:
I think we can agree on these?
Hello Cosmos Community,
I am writing this as a long-term ATOM holder who is deeply concerned about the current “COSMOSIS” merger proposal. While I appreciate the goal of consolidating liquidity, I believe the current merger plan places an excessive burden on the Hub’s Community Pool and introduces unnecessary systemic risk.
Instead of a full-scale acquisition that risks depleting our treasury and diluting governance, I believe the Hub should consider a more surgical approach: a 5M ATOM deployment into Hydro’s Inflow vault.
Why I advocate for this over the merger:
Capital Preservation: Unlike a merger, which effectively “spends” the treasury, a deployment into Hydro allows the Hub to maintain ownership of its principal. This keeps the Community Pool solvent for future critical infrastructure needs.
Flexibility vs. Permanent Commitment: We are currently in a volatile market. A 5M ATOM deployment allows the Hub to act as a “Liquidity Provider of Last Resort,” providing the ability to reallocate capital where it is most needed as the ecosystem evolves, rather than locking it into a single DEX architecture that may or may not succeed.
Risk-Adjusted Growth: A 5M ATOM allocation is a significant, yet responsible, step forward. It allows us to bootstrap ecosystem liquidity and test the effectiveness of capital deployment without the potential “bailout” narrative and governance dilution that the OSMO merger currently entails.
I believe our priority should be using the Community Pool to empower the ecosystem, not to absorb it. I urge the community to pause on the merger discussions and consider a smaller, more strategic deployment via proven infrastructure like Hydro.
I am interested in hearing how others feel about this middle-ground approach.
Hey! Thanks for the proposal!
We really do like the idea of the Cosmos Hub DEX and we really do like the Osmosis as a product - Cosmos needs its own DEX to have new utilities for $ATOM and cashflow.
However, the economiс part doesn’t look like a win/win deal due to high price, uncertain future incomes and lack of tech info about the migration.
As the result, it would be very helpful to see more structured proposal to make a final decision
Wrong thread buddy .. lol
The Osmosis side text will specify this, but we will edit it into the text here before proposing too.
Inflation of OSMO itself would end with the merger, rendering these meaningless.
Why would they release this? He’s not gonna answer you. They wanna maximize what’s left of their holdings and convert straight to atom so they can dump and exit, which is the only reason this proposal is being suggested at all. The rest of it is just a bunch of buzzwords as far as I’m concerned.
I appreciate the ambition behind this proposal and the amount of work that clearly went into it. I also agree with an important part of the diagnosis: the Cosmos Hub needs a clearer and more durable connection between ecosystem growth and ATOM’s long-term economic relevance. In that sense, I do not think this proposal is addressing a trivial issue.
That said, I do not support the proposal in its current form.
My concern is not that Osmosis has been unimportant to Cosmos. It has clearly played a major role as a liquidity venue in the ecosystem, and the proposal is right to point out that the Hub today lacks a substantial, recurring, attributable revenue stream of its own. My concern is narrower, but more important: I do not believe the proposal has yet shown that this particular transaction, in this particular structure, is sufficiently justified from the Cosmos Hub’s perspective.
The first issue is structural. The Hub is being asked to make a relatively concrete commitment, while the most important economic outcomes remain uncertain. The proposal states that approximately 665.1M OSMO would be eligible to convert into ATOM over a six-month window. It also states that full participation would require approximately 11.82M ATOM, that the Hub Community Pool currently holds about 10.11M ATOM, and that the remaining approximately 1.75M ATOM could be minted one time if needed. Those are concrete numbers and a concrete obligation. By contrast, liquidity migration is explicitly described as user-driven and voluntary, and the proposal itself says it makes no assumption that all existing liquidity will migrate.
That asymmetry is difficult for me to get past. If the strategic value of this transaction depends on actual migration of liquidity, users, and activity, why is the consideration largely fixed while the core outcome remains voluntary? Even if one agrees with the broader strategic rationale, shouldn’t the structure do more to align what the Hub pays with what the Hub actually receives?
The second issue is valuation. The proposal uses the 30-day TWAP of the ATOM:OSMO price on March 11, 2026 as the basis for the conversion rate. That may be a practical mechanism for a token conversion, but it is not, by itself, a persuasive acquisition framework. A market ratio can be a reference point, but it does not explain why this is the right risk-adjusted transaction for the buyer, or why ATOM holders should bear the downside if the expected strategic benefits do not fully materialize.
Related to that, the proposal states that Osmosis generated approximately $5.5M in revenue in 2025 and has projected core maintenance costs of roughly $550k per year. I do not dispute that those figures are stated in the post. But I do think they require much more context before they can support a decision of this scale. What exactly is included in “core maintenance costs”? Is that figure meant to describe a narrowly defined maintenance budget, or a broader operating model that the Hub should understand as durable and sufficient over time? Does it include the full cost of engineering, infrastructure, security, frontend, product, partner support, and ongoing development in a way that would justify the long-term assumptions embedded in the proposal?
That distinction matters. At a minimum, the proposal has not yet shown the full operating profile the Hub would actually be taking on. If the Hub is being asked to underwrite a strategic transition, I think the community needs a clearer picture of what exactly it is being asked to support. For that reason, I do not think a single projected annual maintenance figure is enough. I would want to see a more detailed, multi-year, itemized operating picture showing how Osmosis has actually been funded and run over time, which costs are recurring, which are non-recurring, and how the proposed post-merge budget relates to the real historical cost of maintaining, developing, and growing the exchange.
The third issue is governance mandate. This proposal does not merely suggest importing useful modules. It describes a post-merge Cosmos Hub that would secure infrastructure, host liquidity, support asset issuance, facilitate capital formation, and serve as the sole execution environment for the DEX, with the migrated modules running natively on Hub validators and under Hub governance. That is not a narrow implementation detail. It is a meaningful expansion of the Hub’s role. While that may be directionally consistent with some recent decisions that expanded the Hub’s functional surface area, this proposal is materially larger in scope and consequence.
I am not arguing that the Hub must remain static. I am arguing that changes of this scale should be made explicitly. If this is the intended direction, shouldn’t it be addressed directly as a mandate question before it is embedded in a transaction-focused proposal? The issue here is not whether that direction is inherently wrong. Reasonable people can disagree on that. The issue is whether the community has explicitly chosen that direction, or whether it is being asked to accept it implicitly through a specific deal structure.
The fourth issue is accountability. The proposal states that the Osmosis Grants Program would be re-mandated under Cosmos Hub governance, would take responsibility for maintenance, development, and growth, and would receive both its current assets and non-OSMO assets from the Osmosis Community Pool, with the claim that this would fund post-merge operations for at least six years. It also states that those assets could be clawed back by governance vote. That does describe authority. But authority is not the same thing as a clearly bounded accountability framework.
What are the performance expectations under that mandate? What are the stop conditions? What would count as underperformance? What level of reporting would allow the Hub to distinguish between successful execution, passive maintenance, and strategic drift? A clawback right is useful, but it is reactive. It does not answer the broader question of how Hub governance is supposed to evaluate and oversee an ongoing operating mandate of this kind.
The fifth issue is continuity at the application and ecosystem level. The proposal is commendably clear that third-party Osmosis contracts and applications will not be automatically migrated, and that individual teams can choose whether to redeploy on the Hub. That honesty is helpful. But it also makes clear that the Hub is not acquiring guaranteed continuity of the broader Osmosis application environment. It is acquiring a module migration, a frontend migration path, and a voluntary process through which users, liquidity providers, and app teams may choose to move.
That brings me back to the central concern: what exactly is binding here from the Hub’s perspective, beyond the transaction cost and the governance transition itself? If the answer is that the Hub is buying strategic possibility rather than guaranteed economic continuity, then I think the price and structure should reflect that much more clearly than they currently do.
None of this is meant to dismiss the underlying problem the proposal is trying to solve. Fragmentation has clearly imposed costs on the ecosystem, and the Hub does need a more legible economic role. But if the Hub is being asked to commit treasury resources, potentially mint additional ATOM, expand its functional scope, and take on a larger institutional responsibility, the burden of proof should be correspondingly high. I do not think that burden has been met yet.
For those reasons, I believe the more responsible position at this stage is to vote no, or at minimum to require that a substantially more rigorous and explicitly bounded framework be presented before this proposal is considered for support.
At first, I was against merging the tokens, but honestly - at this point I just don’t care anymore.
Both tokens are already heading toward zero, so this decision won’t really change anything. It’s just cosmetic, not an actual fix.
In practice, token mergers almost always end up hurting the price. People like to believe in the narrative of “immutable” blockchain projects, but reality quickly proves otherwise - everything can be changed by a decision of a few large holders or the core team. So much for that so-called “decentralization.”
As far as I’m concerned, this chapter is closed. I accept the losses on ATOM and OSMO as a lesson, and I see the entire Cosmos ecosystem as something that has simply gone off the rails.
Goodbye - time to move capital somewhere that still makes sense.
In many comments, I’ve seen opinions from what I believe are investors who bought ‘high,’ sold at a loss, and then turned their backs on the market in resentment. I used to be one of them—I completely gave up on crypto for two whole years. However, we need to realize that this isn’t just about Cosmos and Osmosis. The entire market has crashed, and the global economy is at a stage where investors are retreating to safe havens. Even the ‘immortal’ Bitcoin, our digital gold and the supposed future of global monetary policy, dropped from €100,000 to around €60,000.
I’m not a developer, a scientist, or an IT specialist. I’m just an investor who cares about the Cosmos ecosystem. Despite that, I believe the community should stand together right now. Instead of bickering over whether the fusion is right or wrong, our discussions should primarily focus on the details that could actually help put the entire ecosystem back on its feet.
Otherwise, what’s the plan? Are we just going to keep fighting over whether OSMO holders are profiting off ATOM, or whether ATOM holders are leeching off Osmosis? If that’s the case, validators might as well shut down their nodes, developers can stop building on Cosmos, and we can all just sit around stroking our egos, complaining about what a great injustice has happened to us.
I’ll probably get a lot of hate for this comment, but I felt the need to voice my opinion.
Merge, hope, and figure it out later when it doesn’t work. That is the plan.
Osmosis is getting crushed. TVL is down around $16–19M, OSMO is hovering near $0.03, and volumes have dried up in this Cosmos winter.
And now the COSMOSIS merger wants to pull roughly 11.8M ATOM from the community pool, plus print fresh tokens, just to take over a DEX that’s already fading out.
That’s a bad deal.
Instead of spending $22M trying to save something on the way down, why not use half of that, around 5 to 6M ATOM, to build a new DEX directly on the Hub? New code, new interface, no baggage, full ATOM control, and actual upside.
Enough with bailout logic. Stop trying to revive dead weight and build something that can still win…
i wonder about the following (no hard go at anyone here, just some hard realities):
Osmo token is pretty much dead (not an osmosis issue per se, more like design issue of any major dex that didnt get enough adoption
yes, the deal “the community”, but those are just words
the cost of developing a DEX is not 20+ million USD
when and after osmosis team leaves the project (i understood thats inevitable), the network effect will go into play. People will go to the dex that works and has more liquidity
so im really not getting this. once upon a time osmosis were the market leaders. thats not true anymore
genuine question. why buy a dying cat in a bag and nail another coffin in a struggling project (atom, yes it is)
imo there is *10000 more hype about all this, than pausing to think the reality. this woudl have made sense (for a lot more money btw) some years ago, then it would have benefited both.
20+ million USD is a fckng insane amount. thats like a huge vc round. you can buy a lot more with this
According to you (the Osmosis team), isn’t Duality cleaner in terms of code and optimization? I’ve heard that might be the case.
If so, why not just fork Duality and migrate Osmosis liquidity onto it? I’d really appreciate your honest opinion on this.
I don’t think anyone on our team has said that because we have never really looked closely at the Duality codebase. I’m sure the duality code is decent but the Osmosis codebase has way more lindyness, works with the Osmosis frontend, and has many many existing integrations with market makers, CoinGecko, TradingView, Keplr, etc.
Valid concerns on the maintenance front. From an operator perspective, absorbing a full DEX codebase into the Hub means every validator now carries that execution load: state bloat, query complexity, upgrade coordination. We run bare metal across both chains and the operational reality is that codebase mergers always cost more than the proposal estimates. The real question isn’t “can we maintain it” but “who maintains it when the original team moves on?” We’ve seen this pattern before in Cosmos. If COSMOSIS passes, the Hub validator set needs a clear SLA on Osmosis module maintenance, not just a handoff.
If anything, the hub should be actively developing a dex to compete with Osmosis since everyone is apparently ok with a dex on the hub now. Cheaper (and funnier) than this buyout of a failed product.
Personally, I’ve always wanted to see a merge between Osmosis and the Hub, and this makes a lot of sense to me. Osmosis has always been the economic center of Cosmos, and merging the two will make the Hub stronger. There needs to be a serious discussion about this of course.
That said, there needs to be alignment between Cosmos Labs and the Osmosis team. I would like to see both parties in the same room, agree on terms, and then bring something on-chain. That would be the easiest path.
Consolidation is the right move, it just needs more discussion between the two parties.
Hello Cosmos Community,
I am writing this as a long-term ATOM holder who is deeply concerned about the current “COSMOSIS” merger proposal. While I appreciate the goal of consolidating liquidity, I believe the current merger plan places an excessive burden on the Hub’s Community Pool and introduces unnecessary systemic risk.
Instead of a full-scale acquisition that risks depleting our treasury and diluting governance, I believe the Hub should consider a more surgical approach: a 5M ATOM deployment into Hydro’s Inflow vault.
Why I advocate for this over the merger:
Capital Preservation: Unlike a merger, which effectively “spends” the treasury, a deployment into Hydro allows the Hub to maintain ownership of its principal. This keeps the Community Pool solvent for future critical infrastructure needs.
Flexibility vs. Permanent Commitment: We are currently in a volatile market. A 5M ATOM deployment allows the Hub to act as a “Liquidity Provider of Last Resort,” providing the ability to reallocate capital where it is most needed as the ecosystem evolves, rather than locking it into a single DEX architecture that may or may not succeed.
Risk-Adjusted Growth: A 5M ATOM allocation is a significant, yet responsible, step forward. It allows us to bootstrap ecosystem liquidity and test the effectiveness of capital deployment without the potential “bailout” narrative and governance dilution that the OSMO merger currently entails.
I believe our priority should be using the Community Pool to empower the ecosystem, not to absorb it. I urge the community to pause on the merger discussions and consider a smaller, more strategic deployment via proven infrastructure like Hydro.
I am interested in hearing how others feel about this middle-ground approach.
Hi Everyone,
With the current COSMOSIS proposal seeing significant pushback over the 11.8M ATOM community spend and the “squeeze-out” of the OSMO token, it is becoming clear that a full merger might not be the path the Hub wants to take.
I believe we should pivot to a model that respects Sovereignty while ensuring Value Accrual for ATOM. If this merger fails, we should not abandon the partnership, but instead move to a Revenue-Sharing / Rent model.
Why a 25% Fee-Share is better than a Merger:
Protect the Hub Treasury: We don’t need to mint 1.75M new ATOM or drain the community pool to “buy” Osmosis. ATOM remains scarce, and we avoid the inflationary baggage.
Real Revenue for ATOM: Based on Osmosis’s $5.5M revenue last year, a 25% “Security Rent” would bring ~$1.37M in real-yield fees directly to ATOM stakers or the Treasury.
No “Zombie” Tokens: OSMO remains the governance and utility token for its chain. This keeps the Osmosis community engaged and motivated to grow the DEX, rather than forcing them into a conversion they don’t want.
Risk Isolation: If the Hub acts as the “Landlord” renting out Interchain Security (ICS), we capture the profit without inheriting the technical debt or risks of a massive DEX module migration.
My Proposal for the Fallback Plan:
If the merger is rejected, we should immediately draft a Mesh Security agreement where Osmosis “rents” a portion of the Hub’s validator set in exchange for a fixed 25% of all Taker Fees.
I’d love to hear from validators and the community: Would you support a “Security for Revenue” partnership over a full “Token Merger”?