The objective of this thread is to solicit feedback, which is to disband the Interchain Foundation (ICF) and re-purpose all funds to buying and burning ATOM on the open market, burning ATOM, and an education campaign regarding the volunteer-only effort to maintain the Interchain stack going forward. Specifically, voting yes on this proposal entails:
Complete dissolution of ICF
Utilizing all non-ATOM denominated assets post-dissolution to buy and burn ATOM on the open market
Burning all ATOM assets
Re-assignment of all Core Cosmos Hub development and maintenance to the Cosmos Hub Community Pool
Education campaign of the new Volunteer-only basis of all Interchain software
Of the $48.1M spent in 2022, the breakdown of expenditures is as follows:
16.2% Cosmos Hub
23.9% Cross Product Work
9.6% Consensus
26.2% Interoperability
24.3% Apps & Framework
Therefore ~7.8M USD should be budgeted for as support for Cosmos Hub on an-ongoing basis and all Cross Product Work, Consensus Work, Interoperability, Apps & Framework to be discontinued in 2025 and managed on a volunteer basis.
The ICF has failed the Cosmos Hub community and ATOM in providing the expected value accrual to ATOM at a current price of $8.20. We believe ATOM investors are providing free services to the users of the Interchain stack without the return on investment that we expect.
We believe the best course of action is to buy and burn approximately $150M USD of ATOM on the open market, and to burn the existing ICF ATOM to create massive buy pressure and increase scarcity of the ATOM token for the benefit of the security of the network, and increased returns to ATOM holders.
Please provide any comments and feedback on this draft proposal.
I would rather support the idea of ​​redirecting everything to the community pool and creating a second Dao, with payment by Daodao and therefore an incentive to make a financial return through the use of the cosmos stack at the cosmos hub by new projects entering the aez .
Even though we value every community input and everyone’s point of view, this one seems pretty extreme to us. We definitely agree to say that the ICF has lot’s of issues to resolve, potentially skeletons in the closet. But dismantling seems like an easy solution to an infinitely more complex situation. At Govmos, we value simple solutions to simple problems, but calling the ICF a simple problem couldn’t be further from the truth.
Nevertheless, we agree that a community input is more than appropriate, and necessary to define what the ICF should be in the future. The most urgent concern appears to be a lack of transparency. Clarifying the situation may be our best opportunity to pursue a successful restructuring. At present, we also want express our full support to this historic institution within the Cosmos Ecosystem.
yeah let’s delete entirely the ICF and its Atoms and let’s give full power on the hub to a for profit org (AiB) which has contributed 0 since 2020.
ps: why do people supportive of the fork still have a say on Atom’s future?
I agree with the sentiment of this post. I have been following and investing in Cosmos since it started trading on Coinbase in 2019. It was minor investment for me earlier on and I became more interested in it and invested more money once Ethan outlined the shared security vision. That vision is coming to fruition now. But outside of the efforts of Informal systems (Ethan, Jehan) and few other guys like Jack Zampolin, Zaki and Sunny (and the teams they lead of course) to create some value accrual for the token, the rest of the community is very actively draining the resources that were invested in this project. I have no idea what ICF does other than dump ATOMs and pay themselves and their cronies fat salaries for doing nothing. The management of the community pool funds is an ad-hoc clusterfuck without any purpose or vision, again the primary purpose is for some dudes write some stupid forum posts and get paid hundreds of thousands for it.
The way see it, there is a couple of communities in Cosmos - some of them super woke around Ethan and the other super conservative around Jae that are kind of engaged in some form of battle over their social values. Both Ethan and Jae are excellent technologists and visionaries and they have their cliques because of that, but the cliques don’t really contribute technology and instead plunge the community into a battle over social values - the same battle which is splitting America apart today. And a whole bunch of these guys are basically looking for idiots on the internet to be sugar daddies and pay them high salaries while they argue what is essentially American politics.
I don’t see how this shitshow doesn’t end with a lawsuit by investors. People can argue about politics all day but not when they are selling tokens for real money on the open markets. A good case can be made that ATOM is an unregistered security and the token issuers have defrauded their primary and secondary investors. I have invested in many crypto tokens, this is the first community where I have to argue Economics 101 and supply and demand dynamics. At all other crypto projects there is rational and intelligent management of inflation. Here is there is gross mismanagement of token supply and basic lack of understanding of how inflation affects market price. Many of the people here clearly want to to perpetuate the lie that inflation doesn’t affect the price and keep selling their tokens to the few idiots that they can find.
Unfortunately even the best of efforts of Informal to generate useful interchain products and services will not rescue ATOM as an investment from the gross mismanagement of the token supply and protocol treasury.
In the Ethereum Killer sector, Solana has emerged as the clear cut alternative to Ethereum with all the rest of L1 entrants from 2018 such as Cardano, Polkadot, Cosmos, failing to gain traction. ATOM is not alone at trading at 2019 prices - same is the fate of Cardano, Polkadot and others. But I have to say if there is a reason for outside investors to sue the management team of an L1, Cosmos would be a clear cut favorite. At other protocols, you can see teams making best efforts and failing. Cosmos is like Enron - outside of Informal - it is a total shitshow.
You can’t just disband the ICF via a Cosmos Hub community proposal.
The legal personality of a Swiss Stiftungs are very specific, and very specific conditions need to be met to dissolve Swiss foundations.
