Just a thought, but maybe the Stargaze team could collab w/ @cortlandt or others to do some crowd-funding for the transition with a premium NFT collection? I bet you could raise a good chunk of Atom that way.
1 Like
Semantics on the word fork, thatās my bad.
To clarify, if we canāt get Magic Eden or Opensea to deploy on the Hub EVM for less than $15m, weāre all cooked.
5 Likes
Got it. I believe the same prop will pass from the Stargaze governance too.
My initial comment focused on constructive feedback - though I was confused about including new EVM-based bridge into this prop. As mutual partners Iāve expected weād discuss this beforehand - as Ark has always(!) openly communicated on all matters.
Spoiler: imho below is off-topic - so skip it in case u like to stay on-topic, but Iād like to properly respond on what Shane is implying.
First things first:
I RESPECT you, Shane, and your team for what youāve accomplished so far. Especially Michael Sotto, aka humanalgorithm - imho invaluable!
RESPECT!
Ark fundings
Unclear intent, but weāre all seeking CP funding to survive, right? 
Frankly speaking and re-balancing your statement: Everyone - except Ark - benefitted from our x-chain bridge, Ark has built. I believe in give and take, I may be wrong, but I dont like the dont bite the hand that feeds u message I read here between the lines.
Please respect for what Ark and I has done for Cosmos!
TL;DR:
- Mad Scientists ALONE bridged from Osmosis, made $1.9M USD revenue on SG secondary (not considering revenue made on BackBone Labs).
- Marketplaces and others made profits from public good Bridge - except Ark!
- Despite some friction, Ark kept contributing.
- Huge thanks to the fam, Stargaze and MANY others - Ark wouldnāt be here without your support, especially after me personally getting 100% rekt in the UST depeg and going all-in (quit my job, sold my car) to keep building.
- SG and other fundings - SG and Ark have always partnered closely, and weāve already disclosed the amounts to stay transparent.
- Ark showed balls and has shouldered public-good work on x-chain NFT utilities (ICS721 bridge, security proxies, multi-chain support) with no direct revenue recently.
As stated many times, we are grateful for what Stargaze and many others did for us. Itās a give and take: many here benefitted from Arkās work. Besides this: I got 100% rekt due to UST depeg. Instead of leaving, I went ALL-IN, quit my job (no income since May 2022!), sold my car and still trying to survive and feeding my wife and son.
Ark built the bridge - others create revenue
Mad Scientists ALONE bridged from Osmosis, made $1.9M USD revenue on SG secondary (not considering revenue made on BackBone Labs).
SG and Ark had a great partnership. Ark has built the bridge (since 2021!)- there is ZERO revenue for this public good! Our x-chain launchpad went live on the Hub just 2 months ago. Ark has maximized output - with minimal input for 36 months now. We know how to turn every penny twice before spending it 
.
Ark showed balls and continue building x-chain NFT utils
In Feb 2023, weāve offered extending Stargaze Studio with Arkās x-chain utilities, your team neglected for various reasons. We moved on, informed you and posted WL Prop on the Hub in Dec '24, you complained and straigthaway Ark had a hard time by the SG fam.
I do understand your impression of not getting enough credits for your support on our work. As demanded, weāve published how many funds we got from SG some while ago (though everything is onchain) - in return for SG staying neutral on our prop.
After all, you DMed and apologized for your X comment on our Hub prop, clarifying it wasnāt meant to disparage us but to address others (the cartel, etc.) who ignored or didnāt support you. Apology accepted - though everything cooled down since then, but we still kept supporting SG and creators voluntarily.
Mutual Partnership
Did SG help us a lot? Yes.
Did Ark paid and contributed back? Yes - in many ways like: building additional proxy contracts for securing against exploits and vector attacks, bridge support for users and creators - on all 7 chains. SG secondary made revenue from collections on other chains through our bridge.
NB: itās ridiculous, some (yes you ) bitched me, for saying āour/Arkāsā bridge. Yes I know it is a public good. But after that MUCH dedication - it is ok for me calling the bridge MY baby. Sorry for not being sorry 
Sorry for this long post, hoping above clarifies things rather than raising more friction!
Ark is here to serve, fam!
5 Likes
Yes 90% of Mad Scientist trading happens on Stargaze. A more recent one was Architects.
What are the steps and fees at present for a collection on Talis that wishes to trade on Stargaze utilizing Ark?
4 Likes
Just need to transfer to Stargaze and it can be listed on their marketplace. Initially royalties are set to 0% - so creators need to raise a ticket for handling ownership to creator wallet - so they can change royalties and provide wallet for royalties revenue.
Like you can join Ark discord, open a ticket and we prepare prop on DAODAO for SG and Ark team to approve and sign.
1 Like
Why would any ATOM holder want to buy stars at a premium?
Buying out STARS does not in any way purchase the team and the UI/infra that supports stargaze.
7 Likes
Itās not that we want to buy stars at a premium but we could accept a realistic ask because I tend to agree a project can be more than just its current price.
Personally I would prefer the token to disappear and take with it its negative aspect so the platform can live on without the burden of a token trending to zero indefinitely.
1 Like
long-time lurker since 2022, never made a governance post but been participating since prop 69 
Iām a huge believer in the Cosmos vision of the interchain, having moved my holdings off Coinbase to dive deeper into the IBC with the launch of OSMOSIS ecosystem. My passion lies in true interchain DeFi and NFTsāwhere holders decide where to list their tokens, not us collections, marketplaces, platforms, or creators.
Thatās the decentralized dream, right?
Iām thrilled to see bridges recognized as public goods in this thread. The ICS-721 bridge feels like a game-changer, empowering holders to choose their preferred platforms freely. Itās exciting to see the interchain vision coming to life! As does the EVM one in the OP.
As a creator, though, I have some technical concerns about the Stargaze migration and ICS-721. Iāve raised these in live spaces and brainstorming sessions, but Iād love to hear more clarity here.
Specifically:
NFT Provenance & Migration:
For IBC-enabled chains with original provenance on Stargaze, what happens to tokens that have already bridged out? We now have a Neutron based DAODAO, Weāre Available on Osmosis through Fractal.Fun and would love to see any and every other interchain marketplace listing CEWTS.
If a collection migrates to ATOM on Stargaze (e.g., via the proposed āBurn/Re-Mintā process mentioned in Joeās stream), do only the tokens still on Stargaze move or how does that affect the NFT from the collection in an Osmosis pool or on Neutron?
With whatās been said above about bridges and public goods, could STARGAZE not spend some time enabling all the collections en masse and just migrate them that way?
The āBurn/Re-Mintā approach feels like it could undermine the on-chain integrity of NFTsāalmost like a Ship of Theseus paradox. Any plans to address this to preserve what makes NFTs special other than a provenance stamp?
Stargaze-Based DAOs on DAODAO:
Many community-run DAOs on DAODAO rely on Stargaze NFTs for governance or treasury security. If these tokens are burned and migrated, will the DAOsā treasuries or functionality be impacted as the tokens that secure them suddenly vanish? Is there a plan to ensure these DAOs arenāt bricked, or should each DAO start preparing contingency plans now like a separate multi-sig managing the treasury?
Iāve brought these up in casual spaces, but it sometimes felt like the concerns were being considered for the first time and the solution seems a bit antiquated with IBC enabled NFTs already being a thing, which was a bit unsettling.
I applaud the words in this thread to team up and possibly make that a solution instead, Iām not even sure if a burn re-mint is the actual plan. I can only go by what has been said in other venues on this topic.
But I have been working on seeing my collection go interchain since August, and suddenly wonder if Iām about to have to start back over at zero with it for some senseless reason. Iād still enjoy seeing NEWTs on all ATOM marketplaces, after all NEWT is the real SKIP token. But Iād like to see it done in a true interoperable way that retains the integrity.
4 Likes
As an active NFT trader in SG, I doubt this data and think you are dishonest because you do not distinguish between NFT trading users and SG active users, the latter includes Stars related activities. What if we only count active users related to NFT trading? Please show your sincerity and professionalism, and be less tricky.
2 Likes
I am a diamond holder and active member of Bad Kids, and also an active member of the ATOM community. This proposal is so disappointing and full of deception and trickery.
- Data fraud: 20,000 active users per month are from the SG chain, not NFT-related user data. Regarding NFT user data again, the ATOM community does not care about any user data of Stars, SG Proposal, or SG chain Deposit & Withdraw.
- Why do you want so much from the ATOM community: Shane can try to build an NFT market for TIA for free (he gave up), and build an NFT market Intergaze for Initia for free, but when facing ATOM, he asked for 3.1M ATOM to acquire himself, but was stingy in return, and the income distribution was so harsh āStargaze team proposes a revenue share program with the Hub above that threshold where 15% of fees are distributed to ATOM stakers that use Stargaze for 5 years.ā I canāt understand why itās not the other way around, 85% goes to the ATOM community and 15% goes to the SG team. After all, you are being acquired, right? Why?
- The valuation calculation is illogical. Why is it calculated based on the 200-day moving average and the current 4 times price?
- Illogical increase in expense categories: CAC = $3 million, because Stars is not traded on any major CEX, which means that users always come to Cosmos through ATOM, TIA, and stablecoins first, and ATOM is the most likely, which means that users will naturally come into contact with ATOM. In fact, the existence of Stars itself is redundant, increasing the user onboarding process and reducing the user onboarding success rate. Users will originally use ATOM & Cosmos Hub, so CAC does not exist.
Summary: This is a proposal full of deception, a demanding mentality, and no sincerity.
9 Likes
I get that Stargaze feels friendly and that the team listens to users and creators, thatās expected when your community is small. But letās be honest: thatās a sign the project isnāt gaining real traction. If Stargaze had millions of users, they wouldnāt be able to give creators that level of personal attention. Itās time to take emotion out of the equation, this is business. And in business, a project that isnāt profitable simply has no value.
3 Likes
After taking the time to read carefully all the feedbacks, I would say that the strategic vision of integrating Stargaze to the hub is fine. Fusioning this OG project with the new ATOM vision is relevant according to me (nonetheless, details have to be clarified imo). Probably not at that price though. Would be interesting to see the stargaze team willing to re-consider their price and offer. Let us build and stop trying to take advantage of ATOM CP. Thanks for reading me.
3 Likes
Shane has always been ambitious. If he asks for 3M USD of funding, then bridges all NFT data to ATOM, deploys funds in ATOM, and invests instead of mergers and acquisitions, the SG team can handle everything freely, which is more reasonable and realistic.
1 Like
Montagu from Citadel One here,
Disclaimer: Citadel One is a validator on both the Cosmos Hub and Stargaze.
The proposal asks the Hub to:
- Purchase all $STARS tokens ( including Community Pool tokens) at a x3.3 premium for $11M
- Pay $3M for Stargaze users
- Pay $250K/year for Stargazeās front-end licence
- Pay $1.44M to fund the team
In return, the Hub would receive:
- Gas fees from Stargaze economic activity
- A 15% revenue share for ATOM stakers who use Stargaze ā but only after monthly fees exceed $120,000, which is x2.4 current revenue
If this moves on-chain, Citadel One will vote No. Hereās why:
1. Valuation
While a premium is usually applied, the implied valuation ( more than triple the current market cap and approx 11x revenue multiple) is way off and canāt be substantiated by any of the arguments presented in the proposal.
2. Terms
- All of requested funds ( except team funding) are instantly liquid, with no vesting or performance-based unlocks.
- The rev share conditions ( if I understood correctly) are contingent on the platform earning a minimum of $120k monthly ( x2.4 current revenue) to sustain itself. After which, Hub stakers are entitled to 15% of revenue on any surplus. This doesnāt seem favourable to the Hub, especially when it is asked to fund the team.
- In addition, rev share is limited to stakers who use Stargaze.
These terms are suboptimal to say the least.
3. Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC)
We believe the CAC calculation is flawed:
- Stargaze primarily caters to App Chains so their users are largely from the Cosmos eco, including ATOM stakers. Claiming they are new users is inaccurate.
- The 20k monthly active accounts metric likely reflects wallets, not unique users.
- The 20K monthly active accounts metric also needs clarification. What specific on-chain actions are being used to define activity here? For ex, Mintscan supports OP claims, but likely refers to general chain activity such as staking/ claiming rewards and not exclusive to marketplace usage.
4. Conflict of interest
The Stargaze core team also operates Intergaze, the main NFT marketplace on Initia. If this proposal passes, the Hub will be shouldering the teamās salaries whoās focus is currently split between two NFT platforms.
- Will Intergaze revenue from VIP commissions be shared with the Hub?
- Should the Hub fund full-time builders whose focus is split?
5. Choosing a winner
The Hub is pivoting towards a permissionless, EVM-compatible L1 to go after new builders and new users. Using CP funds to go all in on a single NFT platform could potentially discourage new builders/ users.
The Stargaze team has built one of the most successful appchains in Cosmos, and we support its migration to the Hub in principle. But as currently structured, this deal heavily favours Stargaze while costing the Hub +$15M for limited upside.
One potential path is to fund the team to migrate the Stargaze app to the Hub while keeping the STARS token, this will:
- Reduce the security budget to 0 ( the main factor in price decline per OP)
- Give the team enough runway to keep building and become sustainable long-term
- Align Stargaze-Hub incentives via a rev share
- Allow STARS holders to retain exposure to the upside of Stargazeā growth ( buy-back & burn or real-yield)
7 Likes
On behalf of the PRO Delegatorsā validator team and our community, we strongly recommend not proceeding on-chain with the current proposition in its present form. If the Stargaze teamās initial intent toward a potential merger is to be pursued seriously, it should involve the engagement of a professional M&A advisory firm to provide a neutral and thorough assessment of both partiesā financial standing and to outline a clear, viable integration plan.
As it stands, the breakdown presented appears heavily biased, lacking the depth and impartiality required for a decision of this magnitude. Pushing this to an on-chain vote prematurely, without a proper due diligence process and independent professional review, would not only jeopardize the acquisitionās credibilityāit could also undermine trust in the governance process itself.
Thank your for reading,
Govmos.
6 Likes
Agree with all the sentiment shared here and as a token holder of ATOM, this proposal passing in its current state would turn me extremely bearish on the Hub.
The essence of a good proposal is that it should factor in community sentiment and recalibrate so that whatever deal is to be voted on onchain - actually feels like a win for both parties rather than some attempt at value extraction that canāt be credibly substantiated.
Again, I like Stargaze. My issue is purely the fact that the math provided here makes very little sense for anyone who has even a basic business sense.
2 Likes
This is a fair take. Maybe the frontend can be open sourced as part of this deal, with the Hub becoming the owner of it. Or the frontend ask can be entirely removed, and be funded from revenue or a fee switch.
2 Likes
20,000 monthly active users is a joke. I doubt whether the entire COSMO ecosystem has 20,000 monthly active users. Can I say I have 20,000 monthly active users if I use 20,000 robot accounts?
All projects come to ATOM to cheat money. I doubt whether the posterās investigation is due diligence and whether he is a stakeholder. After all, anyone who knows the COSMOS ecosystem should know that 20,000 monthly active users is obviously a fraud, and the price is so high, it is simply a fraud.
If the ATOM community approves this plan, I think ATOM is finished, which means that ATOM is in the hands of a group of people who only want to squeeze out the value of HUB.
My suggestion is that 0 ATOM is given to SG. It is hard to say how much value NFT itself has, not to mention that it is an NFT project in the COSMOS ecosystem, not to mention an NFT project that is declining.
In addition, I suggest investigating the poster because he is using gorgeous data to defraud the community
I understand the confusion over Intergaze. It was started way before any thought of a Hub merger. Maybe it can be bundled as part of this deal, with Intergaze revenue going to ATOM stakers or the Hub Community Pool.
Re: Choosing a winner. Iāve said this before but itās extremely difficult to build what Stargaze has built. If another team tries, they will also go through 4 years of learning and iterating at least to get where we are. It is very hard to build a lasting and loyal community of creators and traders. Few NFT marketplaces of late has taken off ā Asteroid (no trades in 6 days), Forma, Pallet, etc. Stargaze has already won.
2 Likes