The acquisition is undoubtedly to use the ATOM of the HUB community as a huge exit liquidity for STARS
Considering that the main issue with the token is liquidity, I think this is a valid suggestion and would be open to it. And just to clarify that its a common misunderstanding that STARS has high inflation – it actually has one of the lowest inflation rates in Cosmos at 4.3% and is further reduced by 1/3 every year until it reaches 0%. See tokenomics.
2 Likes
I think this is a great alternative suggestion Zerk!
1 Like
I’m overall in favor Stargaze joining the Hub.
Would you consider not including $STARS token in the acquisition proposal?
With a rough estimate that would make acquisition 1/3 of the value.
Token could then migrate to Cosmos Hub (for the culture) and function as it does.
Yes I’m sure there’s overlap between Cosmos Hub users and Stargaze users. But if you’re going to say there is 0% chance of Stargaze monthly active users, you will have to prove it with onchain data. Onchain metrics prove it, and it corresponds to what is on Mintscan as well. Overlapping users can be removed from CAC.
Note that activity is decreasing due to the uncertainty around the merger.
The reason for going with the 200-day moving average is because:
- The Telegram leak on Jan 23rd about a merger caused some validators to panic and off-board, destroying liquidity.
- The low mcap is mostly due to low liquidity. A $20k buy can increase the price by 70%.
So the 200-day SMA smoothes out the effects of these. It’s also commonly used in tradfi M&A. Happy to entertain any alternative suggestions. But at the very least, there has to be some kind of goodwill to account for [1].
1 Like
Great point Winfred and the ask may be too high, but I’d offer a few counter-arguments:
-
It’s not just about the tech. Cosmos has no culture without Stargaze and Bad Kids. Some say that Cosmos may not have survived the bear market without Stargaze.
-
It’s very hard to get loyal users these days in crypto. As shown in the post, Blur has a CAC of $2,500. That’s $50M to acquire 20,000 users. And most of those will be airdrop farmers.
-
There’s definitely overlap with users of Stargaze and Hub. That part will be eliminated in v2 of the prop.
1 Like
There are nowhere near 20k monthly active users. No way !!!
Onchain data easily proves this. You can verify yourself or check Mintscan.
You can’t compare Magic Eden with SG,not even close in terms of UI/UX. ME and Tensor are years ahead.
One of the most common bits of feedback we get from users that they like Stargaze better than ME and Tensor because our UX/UI is superior.
Most NFT trading volume on SG is just wash trading. Look at BK, Sloths, Omies, Wandering Whale, etc.
Again, a claim without proof. CryptoSlam, an independent third party verified that Stargaze has almost no wash trading. Furthermore, the protocol has a listing fee that disincentivizes it.
Seeing the alternative that Backbone Labs is proposing…
Show me an example of where BBL got funded and actually delivered without rugging.
2 Likes
Maybe you could keep the Stars token alive (and out of the acquisition cost), but permanently lock the community pool in the Stride/any hub dex. 30% of the total Stars supply is in the community pool.
Could generate some fee revenue from that.
1 Like
you are 100% right
Thank u for feedback
Honestly, never understood the fuss about stargaze. Its not worth that money. I dont think the hub should acquire it. If the sum is lowered to 2-3 mil as a validator we will vote yes, if thats what the hub wants. But contracts are almost here. Why?
Throughout the proposal, Shane defended his 20,000 monthly active users many times. It was so frustrating. As a builder and founder, he obviously knew the difference between NFT active users and chain active users, but Shane chose to lie to the end for money……
3 Likes
yea，the real value of SG lies in the accumulated NFT data, not anything else. The Cosmos Hub will be EVM based. Any current function of SG is not important. The only thing that matters is the current NFT data. This valuation should just base on the NFT data.
@blockshane please be accurate in your statements, especially with slanderous ones.
Your statement is categorically false.
The only grant we have ever received was from the migaloo foundation and we have bought them out.
I’d say that grant has been fulfilled.
Everything that we have achieved has been built from ground zero out of the terra collapse.
Strange move to say this about us, but we wish you well on your proposal.
2 Likes
This should surely be quoted in the ask for the platform. It should be noted in there that although it is a promising platform with a userbase, collections and more there is not much interest to acquire the asset. However, that is not priced in on the ask for the acquisition.
We keep getting back to this one. However, if we check the chart there are some massive price decreases WAY before any talk about moving to the Hub started. Or are those also blamed on the rumours? Using this argument is inaccurate and seems mainly aimed to pump token valuation. And I get it, it is a platform for which you guys have worked really really hard and are probably passionate about… but we are talking business here and not emotions.
However, that all being said I would think it would be smart to split the proposal. We are talking about different things here which makes the conversation quite hard (and you see that also in all the responses). We are talking about the platform, the collections, the tech, a rebuild, and token swap.
Whereas the first few are closely linked and with this payment should become ownership of the Hub (why else pay a ton of money when we do not become the owner, especially since it is paid by the community pool), the token swap should be a separate subject. Especially the latter is highly contested and triggers tons of different opinions. Do note that a “normal” non-web3 acquisition is mostly done against the leading stock price, sometimes with a small premium. But not the massive premium we see here. Please also note that it is already down-voted (virtually) by various validators, which already means you are 0-1 behind before it is brought onchain.
I do agree that moving to the Hub opens up new opportunities and is quite interesting, but not against this price. If necessary I am open to counter-read the prop before bringing it to the forum for a V2, that is an offer I would put out here.
3 Likes
I do not have an opinion as to whether the should Hub move forward with the acquisition or not. That said, if the Hub does move forward with an acquisition, I strongly recommend that
- the Hub does not try to do so in a single gulp, but rather gradually acquire Stargaze over time
- the Hub minimizes the use of multisigs and maximizes automation
Gradual Acquisition
There are various mechanisms by which a gradual acquisition could occur. One way would be to linearly provide more ATOM liquidity against the STARS:ATOM pair on a Hub-based DEX. That said, there are certain technical milestones that might merit additional liquidity unlocking once the milestones are met.
Fully eliminating the STARS token would trigger a taxable event for anyone based in a jurisdiction that is subject to capital gains. Pairing more liquidity against STARS gives STARS holders the ability to time the gain (loss) and offset it with losses (gains)
Automation
There may be parts of the deal that cannot be automated (e.g., auditor confirming that merged code is ready to go), but everything that can be automated should be automated to remove the operational hassle, avoid liability for the multisig members, and eliminate the need to trust individuals.
Offer
If the Hub wants to move forward with an acquisition and agrees with my points above, the Timewave team would be happy to help by using Valence to automate the financial aspects of the deal. Feel free to get in touch if anyone is interested in scoping this out.
4 Likes
I thought this was an interesting idea.
Stargaze already runs a Hub validator, but maybe this opens up an opportunity for helping to partially fund the Stargaze team through the ICF’s delegation program.
2 Likes
@blockshane thanks for being responsive.
Ok, so on-chain metrics from explorers like Mintscan can overstate or capture actions wholly unrelated to marketplace activity by counting behavior such as claiming staking rewards or voting in governance.
If you insist on relying on what explorers say – we should get clarification from Mintscan on how they qualify an “active user” or “wallet” for your chain.
That’s said, what the community, and any potential strategic partner needs is visibility into session-level user behavior and intent. This is critical to understanding actual and potential user retention, and monetization opportunities.
Since you own and operate the frontend, you probably have a robust set of first-party user metrics.
I recommend you focus on showcasing (for example):
1. User Behavior and Engagement
- Active User Definitions (DAU/WAU/MAU) and Count
- New vs. Returning Users
- Session Duration
- Pages per Session
- Bounce Rate
2. Funnel and Conversion Metrics
- Visit-to-Wallet connect rate: % of users who connect a wallet after visiting
- Wallet Connect-to-Transaction rate: % of connected wallets that make a transaction
- Listing-to-Sale conversion rate: % of listings that convert into sales
- Mint-to-Sale conversion rate: % of newly minted NFTs that are sold
3. Marketplace Transaction Metrics
- GMV
- Take Rate: % fee or revenue earned per transaction
- Revenue by Segment: e.g., primary vs secondary
- Average Sale Value
4. Wallet & Asset Metrics
- Active Sellers and Buyers
- Repeat Buyers/Sellers
- Top Wallets as % of GMV
10 Likes
@blockshane keeps making excuses for 20,000 MAUs, it can be seen that it just wants to sell at a good price, which is not honest at all. The hub community is not stupid. There is no need to continue discussing the current proposal. The community refuses to pay for it.
3 Likes
As the creator of the PixYield project, specializing in yield-generating NFT collections actively integrated into community games and PLStaking raffles, I would like to express my sincere support for this proposal regarding Cosmos Hub’s acquisition of Stargaze.
First, I want to highlight Stargaze’s excellence as an NFT platform. Its innovative and user-friendly tools have significantly facilitated the development and adoption of projects like mine. In my opinion, Stargaze is one of the best NFT platforms available, both in terms of product quality and the strength of its community.
This proposal could offer a major opportunity to breathe new life into Stargaze while significantly strengthening the Cosmos ecosystem. Integrating Stargaze into the Hub has considerable potential for cross-chain growth and liquidity improvement—essential aspects for the sustainability and expansion of our respective NFT projects.
However, for transparency and to ensure a smooth integration beneficial to all parties, here are a few points of attention I consider important:
Technical Transition: The technical and operational migration must be carried out carefully to avoid any disruption for current users. Clear and regular communication about each step is essential.
Community Preservation: It is crucial that the strong identity of the Stargaze community be preserved and actively integrated into the new governance within Cosmos Hub. Direct community involvement in major decisions will facilitate adoption of the change.
Economic Stability and Fair Valuation: Ensure a fair valuation for STARS holders while avoiding excessive selling pressure on ATOM. Careful management of the treasury and ATOM allocations will be necessary to maintain economic stability for both communities.
I am confident that these points of attention will be seriously addressed by the teams involved, and I am excited about the future potential of such an integration. Let’s continue working together for the flourishing of an ever richer and more dynamic Cosmos ecosystem !
3 Likes
Stargaze’s cultural and technical contributions to the Cosmos NFT ecosystem are undeniable. Collections like Bad Kids have demonstrated that Cosmos is not just a network for developers, but a vibrant, user-centric ecosystem.
However, the current proposal lacks realism. The ask of 3 million ATOM represents a significant premium over STARS current market value and offers no clear or tangible return for the Cosmos community.
From the perspective of STARS investors, this proposal feels less like a rescue and more like an abandonment. The community that has funded Stargaze and helped grow its collections should not have their losses overlooked. If a transition is to happen, it must be transparent, milestone-based, and mutually accountable.
In conclusion, I support the integration of Stargaze into the Cosmos Hub. But this should only proceed under a modest, market-aligned budget, with a clear transfer of core assets, and through a fair structure that does not erase STARS investors.