[PROPOSAL][DRAFT] Acquisition of Stargaze

Hub Proposals Community Spend
21

Also, this is obviously going to be contentious, but try to remember not to be dicks to each other and focus on the points being made, not the people making them.

Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.

3 Likes
22

sounds like this guy’s trying to scam all the atom holders. we don’t need your dying marketplace that you think is worth 3M atom

5 Likes
23

Looks good, ready to move our project over to HUB! OG stargaze user and creator, very excited for the team and future on Atom!

2 Likes
24

Indeed, hate the game, not the players.

Discussions are held on the content. Good point.

We also need to view this like it is being paid by our own money. Would we ourselves pay this amount of money for Stargaze? That is a question everyone needs to answer for him/herself.

4 Likes
25

Hi, Mr T here, founder of Ark Protocol. We’ve built NFT bridges for 7 chains as a public good and are the clear leader in NFT bridging. I propose two adjustments to the Stargaze acquisition roadmap:

  1. Open-Source Contracts: All EVM-based contracts (Launchpad, Marketplace) must be open-source and hosted in the Cosmos Hub’s official repo, not Stargaze’s Public Awesome repo. They must be 100% ERC-721 compatible to ensure seamless onboarding for Cosmos and EVM builders.
  1. Exclude NFT Bridge: The ICS-721 bridge (EVM Eureka) isn’t needed for this proposal. Ark Protocol, the primary contributor to cw-ics721 and cw-nfts, is best suited to build it separately.

NB: the BIGGEST NFT bridge investment/funds came so far from ourselves - the Ark team. But cudos to BackBone Labs, Stargaze, Terra, Juno, Jake, DoraHacks, Galactic Syndicate and many others who funded us and believing Ark’s Cross-Chain NFT vision.

@blockshane @Mag @CuriousJ @Syed @redphone @BackBone_Labs @btruax @Govmos @Cosmos_Nanny

11 Likes
26

Thanks for bringing this proposal to the forum @blockshane! Happy to get the conversation started.

It’s important that we approach this with a clear business mindset rather than being swayed by a feel good narrative.

I’m going to agree with @Golden-Ratio-Staking and chalk up the current asking price and ongoing maintenance to wanting a strong opening position for negotiation. I’ll share my concerns and the parts I’m excited about once the proposal is more fleshed out.

1 Like
27

I support this prop 100%, Stargaze is the main app I use and check daily the one app I stuck with and survived the bear market alongside! It has proven its vakue as a hub for cosmos nfts and creators, and bringing it closer to the Hub could amplify its impact even more, Props to Shane for the vision, looking forward to what this collaboration can build together

2 Likes
28

This is yet another rug pull! Do not give’em a penny! If they want, they can continue to work, but DO NOT SPEND COMUNITY MONEY! Looks like the new CosmosHub team is the same as previous! Just came scam!

3 Likes
29

… and yes, Ark will also seek funding - but less and not all by the Hub’s CP. Like the community will fund us through our launch on the Hub with the first PFP collection (“HUBbits PFP”), coming in a few weeks. The revenue will keep Ark continuing building furter cross-chain NFT utilities.

Imho the Hub can minimize risks, letting more partner contribute! Like BackBone Labs, Asteroid Protocol, and us, Ark.

Let our work speak for itself:

Core Contributions:

“BTC Ordinals” on Cosmos

7 Likes
30

I didn’t know the ICL worked for Stargaze. Wow! Big skem!

The whole point of the forum is to discuss these things.

1 Like
31

I would be more in favor of a migration fund to help with the costs of migrating rather than an outright acquisition.

2 Likes
32

Anchor is too high.
As is, this proposal is too far from a true bargaining zone imo.

I’s unclear what’s actually being acquired.

Core assets, such as the frontend infra and IP remain under Stargaze’s control, with the Hub behaving as a sponsor.

This proposal is a structure for subsidizing Stargaze in exchange for integration and “hub alignment,” without acquiring real assets with real control.

Typically, in acquisition contexts, key assets are purchased/transferred, not leased.

What I see is a very expensive partnership deal.

14 Likes
33

Mr T and his Team are doing a great job, and I am giving them my support!

2 Likes
35

Can you clarify what is meant by “a new DAO”? Is this intended to be a formal legal entity, separate and distinct from Public Awesome LLC?

Additionally, do you mean that this new entity will have an integrated oversight capacity?

How will the Hub representatives be selected, and how do you ensure they’re qualified to represent the Hub’s interests effectively?

4 Likes
36

Thanks for your proposal @blockshane

I’d also be interested in learning about Intergaze:

  1. How will that affect Stargaze (on Hub) user base, volume and general competitiveness;
  2. How the team will allocate focus and time between the two projects.

And from others, it would be good to hear from other Cosmos NFT / NFT-adjacent projects - since funding this from CP effectively means Hub is choosing “a winner”.

And people’s thoughts on Hub pursuing Open Sea and Magic Eden (migration, outpost, integration - w/e) - I’m aware intros had been made, though not sure anyone of “authority” actually followed it up.

4 Likes
38

Maybe a crazy take , but instead of the hub buying out stargaze, why doesn’t the HUB INVEST in stargaze. Take some money and buy the token at market price as an " investment ". Team up with the stars team and find a way to remodel the tokenomics (ex: stop inflation, increase fees and take percentage to buy back and burn the token)

This approach would save a ton of $$$ and work on migrating the entire chain, would bring some confidence back into the token. Just my two cents

4 Likes
39

Questions to consider:

1. Should the hub fund a premium NFT marketplace that isn’t yet self-sustaining?

There’s a reason Magic Eden and Opensea thrive on chains with deep liquidity, premium infra needs premium capital. Stargaze’s current burn rate isn’t sustainable.

Maybe that changes with mass onboarding and an NFT resurgence (which I believe will come).

2. Are we bailing out STARS holders to pay for tech R&D?

Funding infra ($250k/year) and salaries ($120k/month) is high but reasonable for a quality NFT marketplace.

But buying out token holders? What do we get from that? (Except saving my bags)

3. Is there another way that aligns incentives between hub and STARS token holders?

I think so:

Keep the STARS token alive, and let the hub buy STARS at a fixed rate from sellers.
This is an optional exit for holders, not a forced bailout.
Kill inflation, migrate the chain to hub and use all marketplace fees to buy back/burn STARS.

This gives ATOM holders potential upside on Stargaze ($STARS) and the NFT community.

I feel this would be a hub investment for the long term, instead of a bailout that deletes the token.

Final thoughts
I would love to keep Stargaze within the ecosystem because it is a nice NFT marketplace. Maybe it costs too much, but that’s the cost of nice things. Hope the token can survive as well to capture some value accrual to ATOM holders when NFT season comes back.

(Disclaimer I hold STARS and run two NFT collections trading in STARS)

5 Likes
40

0% chance Stargaze has 20k monthly active unique traders/users and using that as a factor in valuation of customer acquisition like they’re not already mostly Cosmos users seems wild to me.

Then randomly using 4x current valuation by using 200day moving average is outlandish.

I consider this a non-starter without wildly reworking the CAC methodology.

10 Likes