I think this proposal is solving the right problem, but at the wrong layer. The hub does need a real value accrual model for atom. I agree with that part, but buying or absorbing one successful appchain is not the same as building a durable moat. It may import revenue but it does not create an interchain choke point that the rest of the ecosystem is naturally pushed to use. To me, the stronger path is to make the hub the neutral execution and risk layer for the interchain. That means auctioning cross chain execution rights: routing, solver flow, liquidations, arbitrage bundles and intent settlement. Access to that flow should require atom bonds. And part of the fees should build a reserve or backstop for failed fills, bridge risk or cross chain settlement failures. That is a much stronger model than âput the biggest dex on the hubâ It also preserves sovereignty better. Chains would not need to love the hub or pay a tax for existing. They would use it because it gives them better execution also lower tail risk and better capital efficiency. So my view is simple: atom should sit where interchain ordering, collateral and backstop concentrate. The hub should own the rails, not just acquire one venue running on top of them 
The Hub doesnât have cross-chain rights to auction.
To get execution rights itâll need to build up its execution environment which should start on The Hub with a DEX.
I am not saying the hub already has something to auction and i do not mean any pre existing entitlement. I mean protocol level access to interchain flow like routing, solver competition, liquidations, arbitrage and intent settlement. That only exists if you build the coordination layer where that flow clears. Yes, the hub needs execution environment and dex can help bootstrap it but dex is still one venue. Venues are replaceable. Liquidity moves, volume moves. Owning a venue is not the same as owning the rail. If the hub just buys osmosis it may import revenue but it still does not create a reason for the rest of the interchain to route through atom. The stronger model is to make the hub the neutral execution and risk layer where routers solvers and liquidators compete for flow post atom bonds and rely on shared settlement guarantees. So i am not against dex on the hub. I am saying the dex is a bootstrap not the moat
So Zakiâs Atom intents is the way in your opinion ?
Yes, closer to that but only if atom intents is built as the neutral interchain execution plus risk layer, not just another app. A dex can help bootstrap it but the real moat is atom securing routing, solver flow, settlement and backstop not simply owning one venue
Update: Revised Tokenomics & Liquidity Alignment
Following feedback from validators and ecosystem participants, weâve updated the proposal to address the primary concern around ATOM minting and better align incentives during the transition.
Key changes
1. Removal of ATOM minting
The proposal no longer introduces any new ATOM supply.
The acquisition is now structured to still be funded primarily from the Cosmos Hub Community Pool, but with the remaining portion sourced over time through protocol revenue.
2. Revenue-backed acquisition model
Any remaining conversion will be funded using revenue generated from both:
- the Cosmos Hub DEX deployment, and
- the legacy Osmosis chain during the migration period
This revenue will be used to purchase ATOM on the open market to fund OSMO â ATOM conversion.
This introduces a performance-linked structure, where part of the acquisition cost is funded through realized protocol activity.
3. Extended conversion window
The conversion window has been extended to one year to allow:
- gradual, user-driven migration
- sufficient time for revenue to fund the remaining conversion
- a more orderly transition overall
If the full conversion is not completed within that period, remaining OSMO will not be converted.
4. Clarificiation on legacy chain revenue alignment
To clarify, it has always been the intent of this proposal that liquidity remaining on the legacy Osmosis chain continues to contribute to ATOM value accrual. We have added language to make that more explicit.
Protocol revenue, which previously purchased and burned OSMO or accumulated assets in the Osmosis Community Pool, will instead be redirected to purchase ATOM on the open market.
This ensures that even if liquidity migration is gradual, economic activity across both the Cosmos Hub deployment and the legacy Osmosis chain contributes to ATOM value accrual.
This alignment persists beyond the transition period, as all remaining Osmosis infrastructure and its associated revenue streams operate under ATOM governance following integration.
Summary
These changes are intended to:
- remove inflation concerns
- bound the total cost of the acquisition
- tie remaining conversion to real economic activity
- ensure that value flows to ATOM regardless of migration speed
We appreciate the feedback that led to these improvements and welcome continued input as the discussion progresses.
Personallyi think i will support it this way, I can understand people still have issues with using the whole community pool, but tbh i would rather use it for something useful and be done with it then have it just laying around with no use.
I like how the remaining 15% needed will be sourced from revenue instead of minting new atom! That was my main concern anyway.
Maybe @cosmoslabs can take a look again? Maybe there is room for a counter prop where instead of 85% from CP and 15% from revenue it can be changed to 50-50 or 60-40, i donât know the math to calculate how long it would take to fund 50 or 40% of the costs from revenue tho, just an idea
I cannot support this. The âperformance-linkedâ component is too dependent on future DEX volume which is never guaranteed. We are essentially locking the Hub into a long-term liability based on speculative revenue. I prefer to see Osmosis remain independent and continue its own burn/fee model without intertwining its fate so deeply with the Hubâs governance and treasury
The âperformance-linkedâ component is locking OSMO holders not ATOM holders.
There is essentially no cost outside of the CP for ATOM since Osmosis will be paying OSMO holderâs conversion in purchased ATOM from its revenue.
This raises a new issue though where conversion shouldnât become a race & the rate should be 85% for everyone with the remaining 15% of the conversion rate being filled in by revenue collectively for everyone. The idea that there will be OSMO that isnât able to convert is not fair and should be removed, if not, the last to convert have to be the teamâs OSMO.
This essentially reduces The Hubâs cost by 15% (or however much is paid for by revenue) & replaces the cost with capped buyback demand. Which begs the question of why even do the buyback in the first place? Its good for alignment but its not a cost to The Hub so at most it gives value back to OSMO holders that they were already getting with the current buyback method.
Additionally, what will the Osmosis deployment suite do with its revenue post-merge and post-buyback? Using it to buyback anything after this proposal is fulfilled will only harm growth potential. Iâm also concerned that the buyback (which doesnât make this proposal better for The Hub outside of decreasing costs) wiill become a liability that handicaps the ability for the new deployment to grow & therefore be able to pay said liability.
Iâm curious at current revenue numbers and revenue trend, how long it would take to do the buyback?
Sounds like a very plausible option worth considering.
I appreciate the revision in #127. Removing the one time atom mint is clearly an improvement. But I still think it fixes the optics more than the core economics. Using current on chain numbers atom has about 501.8M supply and roughly 10% inflation, so the system is still adding around 50.18M atom per year. Even if we grant the proposal its own revenue case for Osmosis at roughly $5.5M per year that only works out to about $0.011 per atom per year. At $5 atom that is roughly 0.22% annual revenue yield. At $10 it is about 0.11%. Even at $1 it is only about 1.1%. That is not enough to support the claim that Osmosis revenue meaningfully repairs atom tokenomics. It may add some buy pressure but it does not solve the monetary problem. The structure is also still asymmetric. The treasury commitment is concrete, while liquidity migration remains voluntary and the revenue leg remains uncertain. So the hub is still being asked to make a large, specific commitment in exchange for outcomes that are not guaranteed. My second concern is strategic. A dex on the hub can be useful as a bootstrap, but a dex is a venue, not a moat. Venues are replaceable. Liquidity moves. Volume moves. Owning osmosis may import some revenue but it still does not create a durable reason for the rest of the interchain to route through atom. The stronger model is for the hub to become the neutral interchain execution and risk layer where routing, solver flow, liquidations, intent settlement and shared backstop require atom bonds. That is the kind of structure that can create durable demand for atom. So yes #127 is better than the original draft. But if the goal is to maximize atom value, this still looks too small, too uncertain and too dependent on importing revenue from a single appchain
Here are my final and honest thoughts as an ATOM and OSMO investor about the Cosmosis proposal.
I really want the merge to happen, because Osmosis is a great product, has been the real hub of the old vision of Cosmos, and is culturally part of the interchain. I do think that implementing Osmosis code into Gaia drives value to the Cosmos Hub. Although Osmosis has been declining for the past year and a half, its revenues depend on volume, and having such a strong DEX already built and coupling it to the next ATOM vision is quite exciting.
Two points make this choice difficult:
1. The lack of transparency from @cosmoslabs and the ICF about that new vision. We still, as a community, are waiting for clarity about the new ATOM plan from these two entities.
-
1.1 Iâd be happy to have more information about the ICF and see them cease the sale of ATOM for Cosmos Labs operations. Iâd like to see them make a real arbitrage from the BTC and ETH in their treasury and support ATOM price with buybacks. That would be a good signal from the foundation that the ATOM token actually matters in their plan to expand the Cosmos stack into the enterprise and institutions sphere. I really ask for more transparency and communication in that regard, as well as verifiable actions from the ICF.
-
1.2 We need updates from Cosmos Labs about the tokenomics research. We need to be respected as a community and have public information about that process.
The true meaning of fusing Osmosis and Cosmos Hub depends on these points.
2. I donât really like the way @sunnya97 is handling things; it really feels like an exit liquidity move. Iâm referring to the interview with Cito and his will to step out of the project. That proposal would have had much more impact if he and his team had stayed committed to the Hub, and if we had some guarantees that their skills (and their OSMO/future ATOM) would stay connected to the Hub. I also donât like the fact that, with ATOM in the abyss in terms of price, this choice plays on our nerves. We want traction back on the Hub; we donât have any public plans (as I mentioned earlier), and believing that the Osmosis merge will be the trigger for that seems to me an illusion (Stargaze and the low volumes recently showed it). Sunny knows the difficulty the ATOM community has right now, and he is literally betting the entire community pool for him to exit. Itâs somehow playing on the nerves of that very community he is not part of. It feels awkward.
Despite this, I do believe that acquiring Osmosisâs treasury, having the IBC traffic on the Hub, and fusing communities are strong points.
Also, the way to evaluate Osmosisâs acquisition fairly in terms of price seems ok to me through the market cap. Although it feels painful to drain the entire community pool, that should have been balanced with an effort in terms of price support on the proposal.
The hub still carries a huge financial risk, with no real guarantees
OSMO holders need to get a fair price ? sure bur it still feels expensive given the state of operations and the âmaintenance modeâ that is waiting for osmosis if this proposal doesnât pass.
It would be great to have guarantees that OSMO CP is staked from Day 1, and also to know how its treasury is managed.
Also about the liquidity moves, last update doesnât fix the uncertainty.
To conclude, dear ATOM community, itâs a tough choice. At first, it seemed a no-brainer, then all the points and feedbacks raised made us think.
The ATOM community is very strong. We rose into the depths because we believe in the interchain future, sovereignty, and interoperability.
Iâm sure it will find its path, with or without Osmosis.
For me, it will be a hard yes, regretting that we donât have more information from Cosmos Labs and the ICF, and that we donât have more commitments from the Osmosis side.
I do think that Osmosis into the Cosmos Hub is a smart move though.
This proposal is absolutely terrible. Itâs just a dead project trying to use $ATOM token holders as exit liquidity. Why on earth should we agree to this? If the $OSMO token is no longer useful, it should just go to zero. What gives them the right to expect $ATOM holders to foot the bill?
The lack of visibility, whether on the Osmosis side or Cosmos Labsâ side, does not allow for an accurate assessment of the viability of such a merge.
On one hand, the arguments put forward to justify the acquisition price of Osmosis are based on a past that is more impressive than the current reality. There is no guarantee that liquidity will follow the migration, no guarantee that the fees generated wonât drastically decrease after the merge, and if liquidity becomes fragmented between the Hub and Osmosis, it will significantly increase slippage, leading to a loss of confidence from LPs and market makers.
On the other hand, the lack of communication from Cosmos Labs, the wait for the new tokenomics and the team that will be responsible for it, the lack of visibility regarding Atomâs role in potential deals, the fact that the ICF continues to dump its Atoms without rebalancing its holdings between Atom, BTC, and ETHâall of this leaves the community with a bitter taste and effectively blindfolded.
As too often in Cosmos, things happen behind the scenes without the community having access to the information it needsâand should be given. A blind community is a doubtful community, and I feel that Sunny is trying to play on this dynamic to take advantage of the situation and use the Hub as exit liquidity. As he said, he will no longer even be part of the Osmosis team and wants to move on to other projects. Itâs hard to believe that heâand other team membersâwonât stay post-merge just long enough to sell their newly acquired Atom to fund their new ambitions.
In this situation, it is very uncomfortable to judge the necessity and fairness of such a merge, and very difficult to make a decision. Furthermore, the use of the entire community pool (or at least locking it for a year) leaves me perplexed. It prevents any other project from receiving support and funding, even if it would bring value to Atom.
It is clear that if the vote ends in rejection, Osmosis will be put into maintenance mode. It already seems established that this project no longer interests its founders.
Starting from that premise, I believe the community pool should be used to acquire a smaller DEX (such as Astroport, for example). If the new tokenomics and Cosmos Labsâ deals are as strong as Mag suggests, attention will shift back to the Cosmos Hub and liquidity will leave Osmosis (then in maintenance mode) to move toward the Hubâs DEX. A logical transition at a lower costâaside from the cost in time and patience.
My vote will therefore be âNoâ. Hopefully validatorsâwho, it must be remembered, have every incentive for the merge to go through in order to limit their lossesâwill vote for the good of the Hub, rather than for short-term gain today that will likely result in losses tomorrow.
Iâve been following the discussion closely, and it seems like most of the debate focuses on structure (merger vs sovereignty, governance, migration details).
But I think the more fundamental question is economic:
Where does value actually accrue in this model?
The proposal clearly improves coordination and may concentrate liquidity, which is valuable. But increased activity or volume on the Hub does not automatically translate into durable value capture for ATOM.
If the core economics remain tied to a DEX layer, then the risk is that value continues to depend on a competitive and mobile venue, rather than on a mechanism that makes ATOM structurally necessary.
So beyond the merger itself, it would be helpful to clarify:
- What is the long-term mechanism through which ATOM captures value from interchain activity?
- How does this go beyond simply hosting a liquidity venue?
- What ensures that value accrual is tied to the Hub, rather than to any specific application deployed on it?
Without a clear answer to that, there is a risk that we improve coordination without fundamentally solving the value capture problem the Hub has faced for years.
(post deleted by author)
I find this proposal absurd from an economic standpoint. The founder of Osmosis wants to exit (he already has) by selling his stake at a fixed price. I suggest he sell his OSMOs at market price and get a couple hundred thousand dollars instead of a couple tens of millions. I watched the entire interview, and he doesnât even hide the fact that the migration project is doomed. Well, because no one will develop it, and he himself is interested in AI.
Pochemu token OSMO ukatalsya v pol? Da potomu chto tam 40% emissii shlo v karman razrabotchikam. Razrabotchiki regulyarno lili v stakan. Tsene OSMO ne pomoglo dazhe pomeshcheniye tokena v portfelâ krupnogo fonda (okolo dvukh let nazad). A seychas litâ uzhe ne mogut, potomu chto likvidnosti nolâ. I vot oni prishli syuda. Da, eto bagovannaya svapalka bez problem budet migrirovana. No dalâneyshey razrabotki ne budet. Ono prosto tikho sdokhnet. A razraby svapalki poluchat likvidnostâ za schet kholderov Atoma dlya svoikh novykh proyektov (osmosis eto vtoroy proyekt i on khochet nachatâ tretiy). A kholdery Atoma ostanutsya s pustym pulom. Samoye zabavnoye, chto dannyy propozl skoreye vsego proydet. Potomu chto nalitso zakulisnyye podkupy validatorov (v intervâyu tolâko i melâkalo chto ya gvoroil s validatorami, krupnyye validatory, validatory reshat bez Kosmos Labs i vso v etom dukhe). Pozhaluy tolâko parazitnaya fraza YU nou upotreblyalosâ chashche chem slovo validator. Vsya nadezhda tolâko na to, chto golosa prodazhnykh validatrov budut pereopredeleny kholderami.
ĐŃŃ
1 016
Why did the OSMO token disappear? Because 40% of the supply went to the developers. The developers regularly poured liquidity into the order book. Even placing the token in a large fundâs portfolio (about two years ago) didnât help the OSMO price. And now they canât pour liquidity anymore because thereâs zero liquidity. And so they came here.
Yes, this buggy swap will be migrated without any problems. But there will be no further development. It will simply die quietly. And the swap developers will receive liquidity from Atom holders for their new projects (Osmosis is their second project, and they want to start a third). And Atom holders will be left with an empty pool.
The funniest thing is that this proposal will most likely pass. Because thereâs clear evidence of behind-the-scenes bribes of validators (in the interview, I kept mentioning things like âIâm talking to validators,â âmajor validators,â âtheyâll decide without Cosmos Labs,â and so on). Perhaps only the platitude âYou knowâ was used more often than the word âvalidator.â The only hope is that the votes of the corrupt validators will be overridden by the holders.
Iâd like to highlight a point that seems central to me.
Even without minting, a large ATOM distribution can still create sell pressure if it is not properly structured.
In a simple scenario, distributing 2â3M ATOM without vesting or alignment mechanisms could already lead to this risk.
At the scale of ~10M ATOM, this becomes even more critical.
Removing minting does not remove market pressure.
Before even debating the acquisition itself, I believe we should first address a more fundamental question:
how do we ensure that a large ATOM distribution does not result in immediate or structural selling pressure?
Additionally, if this deal makes economic sense, it should be able to fund itself through future DEX revenues, rather than relying on a large upfront use of the community pool.
This would better align cost with actual performance, while limiting risk for the Hub.
Even beyond sell pressure, the broader question of value capture for ATOM remains open
The prop will most likely pass and Sunny will move onto the next grift. Itâs funny reading this whole thread because I canât tell if people actually believe any of the shit they are saying or if they are just paid shills.