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.
1 Like
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.
Semantics on the word fork, that’s my bad.
To clarify, if we can’t get Magic Eden or Opensea to deploy on the Hub EVM for less than $15m, we’re all cooked.
4 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 I’ve expected we’d 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 I’d like to properly respond on what Shane is implying.
First things first:
I RESPECT you, Shane, and your team for what you’ve accomplished so far. Especially Michael Sotto, aka humanalgorithm - imho invaluable!
RESPECT!
Ark fundings
Unclear intent, but we’re 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 wouldn’t 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 we’ve 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. It’s a give and take: many here benefitted from Ark’s 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, we’ve offered extending Stargaze Studio with Ark’s 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, we’ve 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 wasn’t meant to disparage us but to address others (the cartel, etc.) who ignored or didn’t 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: it’s ridiculous, some (yes you ) bitched me, for saying “our/Ark’s” 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!
3 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?
2 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.
3 Likes
It’s 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.
long-time lurker since 2022, never made a governance post but been participating since prop 69
I’m 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 NFTs—where holders decide where to list their tokens, not us collections, marketplaces, platforms, or creators.
That’s the decentralized dream, right?
I’m 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. It’s 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. I’ve raised these in live spaces and brainstorming sessions, but I’d 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, We’re 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 “Burn/Re-Mint” process mentioned in Joe’s 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 what’s 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 “Burn/Re-Mint” approach feels like it could undermine the on-chain integrity of NFTs—almost 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 DAOs’ treasuries or functionality be impacted as the tokens that secure them suddenly vanish? Is there a plan to ensure these DAOs aren’t bricked, or should each DAO start preparing contingency plans now like a separate multi-sig managing the treasury?
I’ve 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, I’m 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 I’m about to have to start back over at zero with it for some senseless reason. I’d still enjoy seeing NEWTs on all ATOM marketplaces, after all NEWT is the real SKIP token. But I’d like to see it done in a true interoperable way that retains the integrity.
1 Like