As an option, add vesting when exchanging STARS tokens for ATOM.
This way, you can avoid that when exchanging ATOM, you will go to the glass.
And in the same way, it will be clear who is truly committed to the Cosmos Hub.
The transaction price is too high. I think first you need to find a compromise in this, then think about the vesting time…
Very good, I’m fully on board with this. If we want things to be done right and actually gain people’s trust, it has to be fair and transparent. Getting a neutral third party involved for the assessment is really important. It’s not even that expensive, you are looking at something in the $30K to $150K range for a proper third-party assessment.
+1 that this is the list of activity metrics that matters, along with the definitions as it’s a much better indicator of “activity” that is relevant in the NFT sense.
The daily/weekly/monthly active users by Mintscan will indeed be based on staking, governance interactions etc. By all means, this type of activity figure can be part of the discussion. I would suggest going into a bit more detail though rather than the headline figure of 18k active wallets:
To be clear, I don’t mean any of this in either a negative or a positive sense. For example, contrasting the trends data from the pre-built charts or the API could, in fact, show Stargaze is stickier/better at retention than other Cosmos chains, thus helping back the figure up. (I haven’t done the analysis.) But if there’s an updated proposal created, contrasting stats for wallet activity - in addition to other activity - can help justify any future valuation targetted.
Do I understand correctly that a big chunk of the proposal is to go directly to Stargaze devs? If so, i would just fully blacklist this deal. Thats simply not good practise
This is not true, only a fraction of it. Most of the ask will go to Stars holders/stakers. ~90%.
This is not true. According to the cunning plan of the project representatives, quote “Redeem all circulating STARS [1] at the 200-day moving average price + customer acquisition cost (CAC) , with a clawback of unclaimed funds to STARS stakers.”. What needs to be highlighted in bold in this quote is not what they highlighted, but this: “with a clawback of unclaimed funds to STARS stakers”.
Now, I will go to my website to show you the staking structure of this chain.
From it you can see that about half of the total staking = is THEIR. Then you can calculate for yourself how much will end up in their pockets, given that more than half of the real holders will not make a claim.
I consider this proposal a scam. It can only be accepted due to corruption. And obviously, this is what they are counting on. Validators today earn not on commissions, but on kickbacks. If this proposal passes, it will create a precedent, and the ecosystem will be completely destroyed.
The first validator to drop out is number 21. The next ones are numbers 29 and 30. What large validators are you talking about? And I especially laughed about the 20k active accounts. You were dumping your token and unloading on the community for several years. After the token price went to the bottom and after there was no liquidity left, you come here to sell the staked STARS with premium.
NFT analytics is here.
Definitely great to see Stargaze and the Cosmos Hub want to “join forces” long-term. Honored to have @blockshane on this forum.
Are you against opting in on what the Cosmos Hub directly offers? Security through ICS+, and if so, why? Versus what the current proposal is asking (understanding there is a new draft in the works).
Does this not attain both:
I’m sharing my opinion on this proposal a bit late because I wanted to see how things would evolve before weighing in. Personally, I see this proposal as a typical example of why governance reform is necessary. Even though I’m in favor of acquiring Stargaze, I believe the negotiation of terms shouldn’t be happening in this forum, because neither I nor most stakers and validators have the expertise to properly assess an acquisition.
Unfortunately, the current governance system forced Shane to publish this buyout proposal directly on the forum, leaving it open to commentary from people who, like myself, are not qualified to speak on M&A numbers. In my view, Shane should have been directed to an elected assembly empowered to discuss acquisitions alongside a professional in mergers and acquisitions, as well as Hub representatives. Together, they could have refined the numbers based on feedback from both parties Stargaze and the Hub before submitting the proposal for a final governance vote.
While I believe most people here support acquiring Stargaze, the terms are currently being renegotiated behind the scenes between Shane and Magmar before being resubmitted. I hope that in the future, it won’t be the ICL or Magmar to negotiate such deals, but rather to elected representatives with a clear mandate to do so democratically and with the ability to consult neutral professionals for complex matters like this. Of course, any final “yes” or “no” on such proposals should still be subject to governance voting.
Lastly, I want to emphasize how much I value the Stargaze project and fully support its acquisition even though I’m not satisfied with the current terms. I genuinely hope a revised agreement can be reached so I can cast a confident yes vote on this proposal!
I don’t think ICS makes sense in a world where the Hub has permissionless smart contracts. I believe its being deprecated. As a team I’d love to 100% focus on product. Managing a token requires an entire team to work with liquidity provides, market makers, CEXs, etc. I’d rather delegate that to ATOM and focus on what we’re good at.
There’s a team allocation, and the revised one will as well. Are you suggesting devs build for free? The biggest chunk is distributed pretty evenly across stakers.
Thank you for your response, Shane. Looking forward to reading the revision.
Is this the opposite of operating as pro open-source?
I believe it’s important not to confuse open-sourcing code, community governance, and acquisition negotiations. An acquisition requires fair and balanced discussions between the involved parties. Trying to conduct such negotiations entirely in the open or through direct democracy is, in my view, not appropriate. However, I’m in favor of having an open and democratic debate on whether or not we should acquire Stargaze. But the negotiation of the terms should be handled by appointed representatives.
This data is incorrect. Only two of the listed treasury accounts are actual treasury accounts. If you’re the author of this tool, please contact me to get it fixed.
