Patience, in two years it’ll be worth 500k$ 
@blockshane could you provide a breakdown of the proposed team roles along with their projected compensation?
Additionally, is this compensation consistent with what the team members are currently paid?
Re: DAO, please respond to this
4 Likes
There some good suggestions here, so thanks for that.
STARS FDV is ~$3.5M
There was a significant drawdown after news of a merger was leaked on TG. So do you think it’s appropriate to use today’s FDV when it was impacted by the leak? The impact of it is far greater than 25% as it caused large validators to off-board, which not only caused a draw down in price, but also destroyed any remaining liquidity.
20k active member figure is exaggerated
This is from on-chain NFT activity. You can verify it for yourself, or refer to Minstcan which shows a similar number.
2 Likes
Where’s the timeline if this passes?
A 1 year roadmap is proposed in the post, with the migration taking ~3 months.
Why 200-day price average? The 200-day MA undervalues STARS IMO.
I agree it undervalues STARS since much of the price action is due to low liquidity. But I think it smooths out the recent drawdown that happened after the TG leak, and strikes a good balance with the current market cap. It’s also a key metric used in tradfi mergers and acquisitions.
3 Likes
Can you link to an EVM fork that includes: frontend, backend APIs, indexing, IPFS hosting thats super fast and actually works, image processing services, geo-distributed image serving cluster, geo-distributed optimized read-only RPC cluster, no-code creator tooling, mobile app, a team that manages social media, does weekly X spaces, and provides support to creators and traders 24/7?
5 Likes
I’d be concerned about this too without context. But for context, the recent drawdown happened after it was leaked that a merge would occur. This caused some large validators to panic and off-board, destroying the price. Do you think its reasonable to use the current price knowing that this occurred? That’s why we’re suggesting the 200-day moving average. If not that, what would you use?
4 Likes
Absolutely not. We have other options if it doesn’t work out. You realize there are other CosmWasm chains right? We’re a resilient team that survived a massive rug, a massive bear market, and can build anything anywhere.
7 Likes
Yes, definitely plan to open source all contracts. Haven’t we always? Happy do it in the Cosmos repo if that’s allowed.
Mind disclosing how much funding you got from Stargaze versus the others? Would you still be around if Stargaze didn’t fund you for years and support the development of cw-ics721? We can collaborate here and build great things.
6 Likes
What valuation methodology would you use?
1 Like
I think the ask is a little on the high side of things with the current state, but Stargaze does bring a lot to the table. Could be really good having the cultural hub on THE hub.
Would be cool if there was also a way to benefit users(mint/trade vol or transactions) and/or creators(Featured, Team Picks, etc) alongside stakers, holders, and the team - though I’m not sure how that could be structured.
Either way, The Wadsquad & Wadz are rooting for the best for both parties 
3 Likes
Thank You Shane for your explanation. I still feel the valuation I quoted (~1.2M ATOM / ~$6M) is more appropriate.
My core view is this: we should focus on saving the project and the team, not the STARS token. That’s why I kept the licensing and team comp figures unchanged. But STARS has been on a downtrend long before January and as an ATOM holder, my concern is that those who’ve been dumping STARS for months may simply dump their ATOM if they receive that high premium now.
Also, If you view STARS like a web2 equity share (which it isn’t, given token ≠ team IP in web3), then the chart clearly signals 0—making a 4x premium even harder to justify for any rational buyer.
Lastly, I’ve been part of similar projects that built sustainably without a token for years. I’m confident the Stargaze team can continue building the brand regardless. And the CAC angle doesn’t hold much weight here. Please appreciate the fact that most of us active on Stargaze are already Hub users, so there’s little net-new acquisition happening.
Please request to offer something more reasonable that’s respectful to the builders at SG, but also sustainable for the Hub.
Thank You
4 Likes
I think it’s wrong to say the early leak caused the price to be where it is right now. You can clearly see the two big sale events at the start of May, but the token had a downward trajectory before that.
My suggestion to the SG team is to focus on the product and the team runway and avoid the token swap, don’t see a world where ATOM stakers will vote favourably on it.
6 Likes
I think the confusion stems from the term “users” instead of “wallets” or “accounts”. I have no problem with the 20,000 connections per month, if Mintscan say so then it’s true. But these are not 20,000 real, unique users. Though, I agree that whether they are real users or accounts, it doesn’t affect fees or revenue.
Unfortunately, none of the arguments presented actually limit the use of sybil accounts; quite the contrary, everything in the Cosmos ecosystem incentives and rewards airdrop farming. Many users have multiple Discords and Twitter accounts, and even without that, spreading your NFTs across multiple wallets has always worked out and is still relevant for big and small projects.
As I said, I spent a lot of time tracking and scanning wallets on Stargaze whenever I saw suspicious activity. Hundreds of users, the most active ones, have multiple wallets for various reasons, most Cosmos users/stargaze users have multiple wallets. If Mintscan says 20,000 wallets, I wouldn’t be surprised if 5,000 or 6,000 are sibyls. Of the remaining hypotetical 14,000 users, how many already owned and staked ATOM? To consider.
Agree with above comment that the donwside of STARS token started wayyyy before the leak. We were already down -99%
@luisqa I think most Atom holders and stackers would prefer to see the Stars token gone and swap to ATOM, but not at this price.
2 Likes
I would use one that is more grounded in reality.
ME & Tesla are not comparable at all to the reality of what stargaze is today.
This is more akin to a private market acquisition with low low low liquidity and a large haircut is in expected in order to get a deal done.
Use realistic active user metrics. Not just high level mintscan wallet data. Segregate out Sybil’s and users that already interact in the cosmos.
Be honest about intergaze and either wrap that in or be honest that you have a competitor that is already engaging with sg creators and will also continued to be working on after any possible merger.
I want this to happen, but you gotta bring some realism before the silent majority writes this off entirely.
I’ll share the rest of my feedback once this proposal is more realistic.
1 Like
Stargaze has been my home since the genesis launch with Women From Cosmos.
I had the opportunity to see my vision come to live, to build a project based on ART and have the chance to support different independent artists along the way.
As an independt artist myself, I could never have imagined everything I accomplish during these past years, so my gratitude to Stargaze community and Stargaze team for the incredible welcoming they gave me and the amount of help is obviously a big factor for me to want to see the potential Stargaze has being recognized.
Along the past years, I saw tons of people had their first interaction with the Cosmos Eco thanks to Stargaze and the creators who have decided to continue building and creating on it.
I think bringing Stargaze to he HUB is the clever thing to do: It means bring home the n1 Cosmos NFT marketplace. Making it all unite in one place.
Stargaze is a truly exceptional NFT marketplace, which scales and continue implementing new features to keep making everything easier for the community and creators in the space.
I believe this acquisition would be a win-win both to Stargaze and the Cosmos Hub.
Disclaimer: Yes, I’m a genesis creator on Stargaze. However, I’ve been minting and building in other ecosystems as well and I can guaranteed that the compromise SG team has to continue building a better product and helping newcommers is something I haven’t found in other places. Once you’ve been involved on Stargaze community, you can realize that the “family” feeling other people have pointed out is unique and real.
5 Likes
Would you love to own Atom? And do you think 16m is fair? @mamoresxiv
As a creator i can say the community and vibe is very active , i am 100% sure moving to the hub will leverage this. I have always been an atom holder almost all in so its even greater to bring my project home basically. That said , i can also see that 4x stars prices is to much of a premium , without take over it will end on 0$ so a 2x premium is more then enough to me and probably acceptable for ma atom bois 
3 Likes
I like the proposal, but the team salary seems high: I hope this is the right occasion to lower it, either if it migrates on ATOM or stays on STARS. I would like more details on the salaries. When a company is not performing, something needs to be cut. I would like the community of stakers to be able to decide or at least influence, and for sure to check, your salaries.
Thank you.
4 Likes
On all 5 chains operated by us, Ark, we’ve have made ics721 permissionless: Injective, Terra2, Neutron, Cosmos Hub and Juno. Any collection from there bridged to SG are automatically listed. Only bridges on Omosis and Stargaze are gated - those are owned by SG team. Afaik the latest and most succesful collection - on other chains than Stargaze - was Mad Scientist. MS revenue so far: $1.8M USD since its inception 13 months ago. Imho most collections stay on their home chain - but that’ll change.
1 Like
Analysis of Stargaze Proposal and Constructive Suggestions
Core Issues with the Proposal (Without Dismissing Its Merit)
While valid concerns exist—such as potentially excessive team salaries during a dormant NFT market, operational challenges (reasons unaddressed), and a $15M valuation that may seem steep given ATOM’s current lack of ecosystem-wide value capture and the altcoin market’s stagnation—these should not justify outright rejection. The focus must remain on preserving and evolving Cosmos’ cultural fabric, which transcends short-term market fluctuations. The ecosystem’s true value lies in its interconnected projects (ATOM, TIA, INJ, BABY, DYDX, OSMO, etc.), and dismissing its cultural consensus risks squandering its potential to become the next “SOL”—a blockchain capable of sustaining long-term value.
Why Stargaze Is Indispensable to Cosmos
-
Product Leadership in NFT Markets
Stargaze ranks among the top globally in NFT market product experience and completeness, setting a benchmark for usability and innovation. -
Cultural Heart of Cosmos NFTs
It hosts iconic NFT projects like BAD KIDS—a foundational piece for many Cosmos users’ first NFT purchases—anchoring the ecosystem’s creative identity and community cohesion. -
Proven Agility and Execution
The team’s continuous, agile development—evident in rapid iterations and responsiveness to user needs—positions Stargaze as a rare asset in a space often hindered by stagnation.
Value Beyond Valuation: The Leverage of Consensus
An ecosystem’s worth is not defined by token prices alone. For those versed in market-making (MM), tokenomics, and community dynamics, consensus acts as a multiplier for value. Whether a project’s fully diluted valuation (FDV) is $3M or $300M, a robust community can drive growth. Acquiring Stargaze for just 0.007% of ATOM’s market cap represents a strategic investment in Cosmos’ cultural and technological infrastructure—a bargain for retaining its core NFT consensus community and market leadership in a critical domain.
Strategic Vision for Stargaze’s Role
Stargaze could serve as the launchpad for Cosmos’ HUB-centric value capture system and a nucleus for cultural and consensus-building initiatives, laying the groundwork for broader ecosystem sustainability.
Proposal Recommendations for Mutual Benefit
To address concerns while preserving Stargaze’s value, consider the following compromises:
1. Code and Infrastructure Ownership
- Ensure full integration and ownership of Stargaze’s codebase by the Cosmos HUB. As this is a merger under market constraints (not a seller’s market), mutual compromise is essential to align incentives with the ecosystem’s long-term goals.
2. Compensation and Alignment of Interests
- Moderate salaries temporarily to reflect market conditions, without undermining the team’s expertise. In return, grant higher revenue-sharing proportions tied to performance milestones. This aligns the team’s success with the HUB’s growth, mitigating risk for Cosmos while rewarding long-term value creation.
3. Dynamic STARS-ATOM Conversion Pricing
- Structure the conversion ratio between STARS and ATOM with tiers linked to development milestones and business performance (e.g., a baseline ratio with upside based on adoption, user growth, or product deadlines). This avoids static, risk-laden valuations and rewards iterative progress.
Disclosure of Interests
- User Profile: Active in Cosmos, Ethereum, and SOL ecosystems; holder of ATOM, STARS, and NFTs (BAD KIDS, Celestine Sloth Society, Mad Scientists, etc.).
- Experience: Built and led projects in NFT markets, wallets, blockchain browsers, secondary funds, and incubators.
- Assessment: Stargaze earns 75/100 for overall execution; 90/100 for product development, team agility, and execution speed—testaments to its potential as a cornerstone of Cosmos’ future.
Conclusion
Debate valuation rigorously, but do not conflate price with purpose. Stargaze’s role as a cultural and technological anchor for Cosmos is irreplaceable. By addressing concerns through collaborative, performance-driven terms, the ecosystem can retain its innovation edge while positioning itself to capture the next wave of blockchain value.
2 Likes