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 “put the biggest dex on the hub” 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 doesn’t have cross-chain rights to auction.
To get execution rights it’ll 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 Zaki’s 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