i have the same opinion
Hey everyone. I am a long time staker and believer in Cosmos, who has become increasingly skeptic of Cosmos Hub. Bear with me as I try to deconstruct and understand some of the arguments in favor of the merge, hoping that you can bounce back some of my thoughts. As @agent.kwosh stated on Twitter, we need to evaluate the complementary strengths and weaknesses of each platform for a successful merge.
Starting with the abstract goal of having a single Hub in Cosmos with a competent DEX. It seems to me that most people from both communities agree that this would be beneficial. Osmosis has strong products and integrations, as well as a competent team. On the other hand, Cosmos Hub has the liquidity and recognition outside of Cosmos that is much needed to attract on-chain activity. ATOM, despite its shortcomings, is perceived as the most trustworthy token in the ecosystem.
Osmosis has set its goal in expanding beyond Cosmos, leveraging partnerships with Nomic, Axelar and Noble to strengthen its BTC, ETH and USDC liquidity and become truly interchain. This expansion, intentionally or not, accounted for the loss in strength of ATOM that weâve come to experience. The inflows are now much more diverse - the Hub represented 28% of inflows in the last 14 days, only narrowly surpassed by Noble. In a sense, Osmosis now aims to compete with Thorchain, which has recently integrated Kujira.
While Osmosis has been successful in capturing USDC inflows, the main market to capture for any crosschain DEX is Bitcoinâs. It has the deepest liquidity of all crypto, and unlike Ethereum, lacks a DeFi ecosystem. However, a significant portion of Bitcoin holders do not trust their tokens to other chains. Trust is a deciding factor for the Bitcoin expansion to succeed. Finally, the Osmosis treasury is denominated in OSMO, which lacks the liquidity for efficient deployment.
Cosmos Hub has been loosely trying to create a value proposition for its own token and chain. Starting as a governance-focused chain with no smart contracts, it has recently enabled CosmWasm and the permissioned deployment of DAO DAO, opening the door for a bigger focus in products and utility instead of âtrue neutralityâ. Along the way, it added two chains - Neutron and Stride - under its sphere of influence through ICS. A third one, Duality, started discussions to join ICS, but ultimately merged with Neutron. Duality would have been a competing DEX to Osmosis. Neutron includes a suite of DeFi products very similar to Osmosis as well. It is still unclear to me what a potential merge with Osmosis would mean to Neutron.
From my perspective, a Hub with an integrated Osmosis DEX and all its liquidity would put Neutron in a very difficult position. It simply would not be able to compete as a DeFi hub - Osmosis would have no friction in attracting liquidity from the entire ecosystem. The Hub would become the unquestionable centerpoint of liquidity in Cosmos. Neutron could potentially move to PSS and pay for its security in less favorable terms.
As many have raised in this discussion, governance is a very sensitive topic for Cosmos Hub. It is generally slow, with 14 days for discussion plus a 14 day voting period, and riddled with failed attempts to push the Hub forward. I wonât go into detail regarding ATOM 2.0, inflation reduction or ICS proposals, but each discussion has fragmented the community and slowed innovation. AADAO is now fully focused on accelerating the Hub and I hope they are involved in these discussions. On the other hand, governance in Osmosis is not only swift and effective, but essential to the chainâs success so far.
To sum up, these are the strengths I see in Cosmos Hub:
- itâs the main driver of development across the tech stack
- stronger brand reputation outside of Cosmos
- deeper liquidity of its treasury
- AADAO has been competent in searching for revenue paths
And here are the strengths in Osmosis:
- has a strong product
- competent dev team
- strong leadership in Sunny
- functioning governance
Considering these points, itâs hard to imagine Cosmos Hub accepting Osmosisâ style of governance. The Hub prides itself on its governance decentralization. Proposals often come from different people, and validators have a diverse set of opinions. The proposed merge strategy would welcome the Osmosis team as the core dev team and Sunny in a position of leadership, but governance would remain in the hands of Cosmos Hub, considering the huge difference in market cap between the two chains. While I donât think this is a matter of monetary premium, it would be important to either decouple Osmosis governance from the Hubâs or to give OSMO holders equal participation in governance. AADAO should continue to operate with a clear separate mandate.
Other collaboration strategies, such as Osmosis joining ICS, could be used as an intermediate step, but fail to capture the best alignment. The trust that Osmosis needs does not come from validator security, it comes from the perception of being at the center of its ecosystem. ICS also does not address the governance question by itself - if Osmosis keeps its token for governance but decouples it from the chainâs economy, the governance itself will be at risk.
I wrote this post to understand better the advantages of this merge to Osmosis myself. I think the original post fails to scratch beyond the surface of these benefits. This analysis is much necessary to curb more extremist thoughts - that Osmosis would achieve just the same if the Hub were to simply disappear. Reputation and CEX liquidity take years to develop. Osmosis would benefit greatly from having their treasury denominated in ATOM, despite all the issues with token emissions that have been endlessly discussed in this forum.
As a closing thought, if we are to merge Cosmos Hub and Osmosis, I definitely think that the ICS chains should get involved in the discussion. I am partial to including Stride in the merge as well, but I donât want to light another fire in this thread. Godspeed!
8 Likes
Generally speaking, everything happening in the Cosmos ecosystem so far is the opposite of the strategy that should be pursued. There are great benefits to accumulating and unifying liquidity - why do you think TD Ameritrade buys out Scottrade and then Schwab buys out TD Ameritrade? To combine the liquidity of all those companies. When you combine liquidity, a trading company can lower the trading spreads. Thus the combination of TD Ameritrade + Scottrade + Schwab is bigger than all 3 companies combined. In other words, 1+1+1 = 5, because at a lower trading spreads, the combined entity can gain additional customers.
In Cosmos exactly the opposite is happening. Liquidity is being infinitely fragmented, the trading spreads explode and the separated entities are far smaller than if they were combined. First Osmosis split off (and I understand the reasons, to build a good DEX faster than the Gravity DEX team) but adding an OSMO token fragmented liquidity - now people had to invest in both ATOM and OSMO with lower market cap expectations for each. Then you had Neutron show up with Atroport. Now you have NTRN and ASTR token to invest in with ASTR directly competing vs OSMO. If a person has $1000 to invest in Cosmos, now he has to invest $250 max in 4 different tokens. In Ethereum, he just invests in Ethereum for the same exposure.
You also have ridiculous tokenomics with ATOM feature 10-20% inflation ever since they let the inflation be set by the market. The âmarketâ is broken as it seems that validators game the staking percentages to maximize token emissions. In other words, you have validators that are dumping on fools in the market without any reservations. Osmosis is not dramatically better in that respect.
So now, not only do you have massive liquidity and investment fragmentation, you complement that with ridiculous inflationary schedules which overpay for the size of these different tokens. As it stands OSMO has only 120M in TVL and $400 million market cap. I mean OSMO can easily go down another -75% before anyone gets worried about their dollars locked up in OSMO.
I donât think this merger would accomplish much unless ATOMâs inflation is dealt with. That is the number one issue - the inflation and the dumping by validators. After you fix the ATOM inflation, then you have a token which you can use to acquire things like OSMO or STRD. I do think it makes sense to have OSMO and STRD as governance tokens - since the apps need more flexiblity in governance than the general hub - but in terms of liquidity (bridge currency in liquidity pools) or gas fees - all of that has to be in ATOM. But ultimately, in terms of liquidity pools - it is very likely that USDC wins the game there long term. On Binance, USDT is the currency everything is paired with. Binance is the largest CEX, so you should expect USDC to win out the game of liquidity. So ATOM has serious competition in the LP game as well.
Finally, Sunny said that Osmosis canât be an ICS consumer chain because he needs custom validators. What changed?
It seems to me this discussion today is being raised to try and rescue the price of the tokens and trigger âbuy the rumor, sell the newsâ type of token purchases. In this case, we have a ârumorâ and the expectations is that will trigger buying.
Generally speaking, you have a bunch of folks behind ATOM and OSMO who view themselves as Wall Street pump-and-dump masters and they will pump and dump the tokens how they see fit. There is no guarantee that after this merger here, there wonât be spin offs if the market conditions are better. After all, last time the liquidity conditions were better (even if with fake UST liquidity), this team didnât stick together instead they all split apart resulting in this situation now. BTW, every retail person that invested in OSMO or ATOM in the past 3-4 years is sitting on pretty big losses. These teams are simply too smart for their investors. Investors need to be beware.
From here on out, they are guilty of pumping-and-dumping until proven innocent. People that gave them the benefit of the doubt over the past 3 years have been burned
1 Like
I do not know why others hate the Merge between Osmosis and Cosmos Hub but I think they do not see the bigger picture. To me, this is like an upgrade of Cosmos, both chains evolving.
Osmosis would evolve into Osmosis - âThe Cosmos Hubâ and Cosmos Hub would evolve into âCosmos Networkâ. $Osmo is a much weaker token than $Atom and in my opinion this Merge would be very beneficial long term for both Osmosis and Cosmos Hub, strengthening both chains under one token. I don`t know why $Atom gets so much hate, but if necessary then it can be rebranded to $Cosmos.
Osmosis, becoming âThe Cosmos Hubâ would be the best DEX for Cosmos and other Defi activities, using $Atom or $Cosmos as token for liquidity and gas, while âCosmos Networkâ would be in charge of security, Cosmos SDK and IBC. I would also suggest IBC to be used with $Atom or $Cosmos as token for gas fee.
You should also consider that competition is really high nowadays, with so many ecosystems taking over and Cosmos Hub looks like it`s falling behind even though it has the potential to compete with Solana, Ethereum and others.
Lets make Cosmos great again!
2 Likes
I see a lot of Cosmos hub cheerleaders in the beginning of this discussion. Lets take a step back before discussing all ways to get a merger done and see the bigger picture.
Cosmos hub is partnering with Elys Network DEX in the near future. Whats up with that and at the same time start talking about a âmergerâ with Osmosis??? âLets merge with Osmosis and at the same time set up a new DEX that does exactly the same thing as Osmosis already does but is completely under our control!â I very much question the motivation behind a âmergerâ prop.
Osmosis is going in a totally different direction then Atom with a very good dev team, expanding outside cosmos to be a dex including BTC etc, towards 0% inflation and completely revenue driven operating modus with a fixed max supply that will probably be reduced by 30%. Now this prop wants Osmo to merge with inflation driven Atom, with incompetent government, hugely misused comm pool and with unlimited supply.
Cosmos prop #952 is at this moment under voting. This âmergerâ discussion/prop is a distraction.
If disfunctional Cosmos hub gov cant even get the 2017-2023 financial reports published, talking about a âmergerâ with actually functioning Osmosis is imho extremely arogant.
Cosmos hub, first get your gov/inflation/comm pool/tokenomics shitshow (the reason why Cosmos hub is falling behind) cleaned up before Cosmos hub can be regarded as a trustworthy partner to any other chain, let alone starting to talk about a âmergerâ.
Until then I regard any âmergerâ prop as a hostile takeover proposition.
Especially in the light of the Cosmos hub/Elys Network Dex partnership in near future.
Disclosure: I hold both Osmo and Atom
6 Likes
^ the post above mine has better arguments e.g. we are still waiting for 2017-2023 financial reports
This proposed merger between Cosmos Hub and Osmosis?
Itâs a total disaster. Believe me, itâs not the right move, not now, not ever.
I want to know whatâs really going on behind the scenes. Whoâs pulling the strings at Cosmos? Whoâs making these decisions? I demand transparency. We need to know whoâs running the show and what their motivations are.
As the saying goes:
âFollow the money ⌠and your ass will followâ
- Funkadelic
Iâm a fair guy. Iâm willing to listen to proposals, but theyâve got to be good, theyâve got to be strong, and theyâve got to benefit everyone involved. So hereâs my counteroffer: if weâre going to even consider this merger, I want to see a minimum of 2x OSMO for each ATOM swapped. Anything less is a joke. We need to make a deal thatâs so good, so strong, so powerful, that everyone comes out on top. Anything less is unacceptable.
We need a better deal, and we need it now. If not, then this merger is dead in the water. And trust me, folks, I know how to walk away from a bad deal. Iâve done it before, and Iâll do it again if necessary.
2 Likes
This was initiated by the community. People who hold both atom and osmo such as Wickex, agent kwosh, myself, and others. We want to realize a greater cosmos vision to help go up against eth and sol. Maybe you should ask yourself who doesnât want that? What you are seeing is raw initiative, and you can track how itâs evolved over the last few days on X and telegram.
As you can see in the disclosure under my previous post, I hold both Atom and Osmo. I fully support a greater cosmos vision to help go up against Eth and Sol.
Thinking to accomplish that with a Cosmos hub Osmosis âmergerâ is a wrong line of thinking. Cosmos hub cleaning up its mess is the only way for Cosmos to compete with Eth and Sol. Any âmergerâ talk without first cleaning up is distraction and hurting Cosmos.
Maybe you should ask yourself what is the reason behind this sudden emerging of âmergerâ talks. It is not like this has never been discussed before.
I care about the health, sustainability and growth of Cosmos ecosystem. I have my doubts that ppl talking now about a âmergerâ and enthoustasticly tunnel vision planning out the details to make that happen also doâŚ
Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Talk about a Cosmos hub Osmosis âmergerâ is not in the best interest of Cosmos ecosystemâŚ
Especially not in light of the upcomming partnering of Cosmos hub with the new Elys Network DEX.
Cosmos can not go up against Eth and Sol because there are too many individual chains who basically do not care about Cosmos Hub and Atom. The focus should be on Atom and Cosmos Hub if you want to go up against Eth and Sol. So far, Osmosis was the only DEX in Cosmos. Is time to bring more DEXs for Cosmos and create competition between each other. Competition is always good. Do not get me wrong, I love Osmosis, is my favourite DEX that I have ever used.
We have taken the time to thoroughly assess this complex matter, allowing a few days to gather various community feedback and carefully separate the political motives from the rational arguments. In this post, we will share our review, provide context, and include links for those who wish to delve deeper into the implications of these movements, both in the short and medium to long term.
Short-term Strategy:
Currently, we are in the initial phase where discussions are active and opinions are being shared. A few contributors have distinguished themselves by providing valuable information and concrete propositions. At Govmos, we believe it is crucial to focus on the howâto craft well-considered proposals and allow the community to vote. While opponents may be vocal, their lack of substantial contributions often reveals underlying political motivations.
We stand firm in our belief that the community should have the final say. To achieve a well-informed decision, we must first gather viable proposals, merge them to reach a consensus among active participants, and then proceed to votings. Drawing lessons from the ATOM 2.0 experience, we advocate for an iterative approach, avoiding âall-in-oneâ propositions and instead proposing a step by step plan, whilst we emphasize on the cohesive larger plan.
Mid-term Strategy:
Once the best ideas have been consolidated, the initial focus should be on the economic aspects, followed by governance and technical considerations. For a successful integration of Osmo and Atom, it is essential to first define the desired level of integration: Do we seek a financial merger, a governance merger, or a technical merger? These elements build upon each other in that specific order, making financial alignment the logical first step.
To explore the optimal path for financial alignment between Osmosis and the Hub, we believe that both communities should consider leveraging existing tools like the InterChain Security (ICS) agreement. Given the close involvement of both parties, a TOP-N deal aligns well with the merger request. At Govmos, we believe the Hub is not yet mature enough in its product offerings for a full-scale merger, although we have previously envisioned this as part of the Hubâs long-term mandate (reference: this post). For now, establishing a well-balanced Partial Set Security (PSS) agreement between the Hub and Osmosis would be a prudent first step towards deeper integration, with an iterative approach.
The next step could involve even stronger alignment through a liquidity swap agreement using a covenant system, as designed by @Noam and Binary Builders. This concept, proposed as part of the Atom Alignment Treasury, was successfully funded through this proposition. Osmosis appears to be an ideal candidate for such a program.
Once financial and economic alignment is achieved, the focus should shift to governance alignment. There are multiple options to explore, and existing feedback has already highlighted key considerations, such as the need for faster voting durations for Osmosis. This stems from the inherent differences between security and liquidity aspects, suggesting that maintaining two independent voting systems with adjustable parameters is essential. This approach is fully compatible with our recommendation to use PSS. Should the community agree to it, we could then consider enhancing an alignment treasury with governance capabilities, allowing the Hub to participate in Osmosis governance and vice versa. This is a promising area of exploration.
Finally, after achieving financial and governance agreements, we can consider the technical integration, which would entail a full-stack alignment with the Hub. This would involve a complete merger of Osmosis into the Hub, including a 100% revenue share and full governance by ATOM holders. Such a merger would offer significant liquidity efficiency benefits but would require a fully functional liquid staking ecosystem within the Hub to be viable. It is crucial to remember that liquidity and security are fundamentally different, with liquid staking offering a hybrid form that balances both properties, albeit with some trade-offs. We suggest postponing a full merger until the Hub has established a solid and fully operational liquid staking ecosystem.
Long-term Strategy:
In addition to these steps, we advocate for a long-term strategic vision. To provide context, we reference @ebuchmanâs (Cosmos Hubâs co-founder) vision, which outlines the phases of Cosmosââinitiation,â âintegration,â and âillumination.â According to Buchman:
âThe dawn of Integration is marked by the distinction of the security of the Cosmos Hub, and its realignment with the growth of the broader interchain ecosystem.â
This integration phase was initiated by the launch of interchain security, particularly the ICS v2 update brought by the recent PSS deployment. As of now, we find ourselves at the core of this integration phase, expanding both the economic and political influence of the Hub within the interchain, while continuing to decentralize as we scale and integrate with more partners (reference: Collaborative Finance thesis).
At Govmos, we fully endorse this vision and believe that the integration of Osmosis with the Hub is a crucial step towards realizing this long-term vision.
CONCLUSION:
In summary, we recommend beginning with a âshort-termâ approach that prioritizes gathering community feedback and ideas, consolidating the proposals of those actively contributing, and progressing step by step. We suggest a mid-term strategy focused on financial alignment, starting with a TOP-N PSS agreement to initiate revenue sharing while maintaining governance and technical independence. We also propose creating an Alignment Treasury in parallel to further solidify the relationship beyond revenue sharing, with independent votes for each initiative.
Only after successful financial integration should governance and technical alignments be pursued, as these are expected to occur further down the line. For now, we encourage focusing on financial integration while keeping the mid-term strategy in mind.
Finally, we advocate for educating the community on the long-term vision of the Hub as a collaborative coordinator within the Interchain. With successful integrations like this one with Osmosis, and hopefully many others, we can conclude the integration phase and move towards the next chapter in the interchainâs history.
Thank you for reading,
we look forward to the communityâs feedback on our propositions.
Govmos (the governance arm of the PRO Delegatorâs Validator).
Sources to extend reading on the subject:
https://ebuchman.github.io/posts/phases-of-cosmos/
https://forum.cosmos.network/t/essay-cosmos-hub-the-first-democratic-state-of-capital
https://forum.cosmos.network/t/cosmos-ecosystem-a-permissionless-b2b2c-network
12 Likes
That is the point, isnt it? Before any focus on how, the first MAIN question that needs to be answered is: Is it healthy and beneficial for Cosmos ecosystem, as well as Cosmos hub and as well Osmosis to have a merger. The answer for me to that question as I have argued with reasonings in my posts is a resounding: NO
Ofc the community has the final say with vote, who is arguing that it is not? Very suggestiveâŚ
Forcing through a vote without addressing the MAIN issuesâŚhmmm, do you really want a vote that is informed about WHY and not only HOW??? I actually doubt that. Look at your own post and the OPâŚ
From the start tunnel vision to only and exclusively HOW completely supresses any discussion on the MAIN question that needs to be answered first.
This again supresses any discussion on the MAIN question. As you can verify: my previous posts have been about 1/5 of your post. Indeed, while you are very vocal, your lack of substantial contribution on the MAIN issue reveals your underlying political motivation.
I see for example that you voted âNoâ on prop #952âŚ
One of the arguments I make is that Cosmos hub needs to clean up its gov mess before it can be a trustworthy partner for any chain, including Osmosis.
Unfortunately I dont see any reaction from you to that. This is unfortunate and a shame.
Technical/gov/toconomics etc I am sure it is possible and there will be not that much discussion about HOW to do it. That can be worked out as you show. The âManage resistanceâ is therefore to avoid at all costs and supress/ ignore discussing the MAIN question. Managing resistance is very anti democratic and leans to dictator behaviour. Just force it down the throat by insisting only discussing HOW shows very political motivation⌠I expect better from Cosmos hub.
The integration phase is the long term argument you give for âmergerâ with Osmosis⌠You are saying out loud that it is the purpose of interchain secutiry to merge with every cosmos chain? If this is not the case then this argument for âmergingâ with Osmosis is just propaganda. Inter chain security in NO WAY demands that chains are merged into Cosmos hub. It IN NO WAY demands that Cosmos hub and OSMOSIS merge and is also IN NO WAY a logical conclusion from interchain security.
This is a contradiction. decentralize⌠and intergrate, (that is in your words: MERGE) with more partnersâŚ(remember that this argument is used by @Govmos to push through a merge with Osmosis).
Seeing how you insist on only tunnel vision on HOW and supressing and by all means ignoring the MAIN issue that has to be addressed first I see your post as confirmation that this prop is indeed intended to be a hostile take over prop. I am very very disappointed in this behaviour.
Unfortunately I now have to copy my posts also to Osmosis forum because you have very prematurely already put the prop discussion on the Osmosis forum without even attempting to address the MAIN issue here in Cosmos hub forum. This again shows the dictator like and hostile take over attitude which frankly disgusts me.
I have nothing against more competition, in fact there are several dex s already in Cosmos. Competition is good indeed. I only question the Cosmos hub role and motivation in putting up a âmergeâ prop with Osmosis while at the same time setting up Elys Network DexâŚ
1 Like
We would like to address some key misunderstandings in your reasoning.
First and foremost, itâs crucial to distinguish between contributing constructively to the community by developing proposals and simply pushing an agenda. Our primary focus is on how to present something meaningful to the community, ultimately allowing them to vote on it. This is where you, along with other opponents, can rally your support and vote against it if you so choose.
The essence of our approach is not about passing proposals by any means necessary. If the community votes against a proposal, we will accept that outcome and move on. Our commitment to generating ideas and content is driven by the goal of facilitating community decision-making, not by political motivations. Unfortunately, your stance appears to be more about opposing the creation of content rather than engaging in the democratic process.
Itâs important to recognize that attempting to prevent people from working on ideas or proposals is fundamentally counterproductive. You seem to suggest that we shouldnât even explore the possibility of a merge, but the reality is that you canâtâand wonâtâstop people from pursuing initiatives you disagree with. We are committed to being part of the solution by producing content and facilitating discussions, while you seem focused on obstructing progress. We will always stand on the side of constructive action, as it is far more productive than merely attempting to tear down what others are building.
4 Likes
I am adding to the creation of content by asking the reasons why and by doing so am engeging fully in the democratic proces⌠very harmfull framing here supressing democratic discussionâŚvery unfortunate.
I in NO WAY attempt to prevent or suggest that we shouldnt even work on ideas, or proposals also merger ideas. This is very harmfull framing that you do here⌠Very disappointed in thatâŚ
I argue that we first have to address the MAIN issue: What are the reasons behind this prop and is it beneficial for also Cosmos ecosystem and Osmosis. I am very sure as I explained that the HOW it can be done is fairly easily agreed upon. Now again you completely suppress the discussion about the MAIN issue that is the elephant in the room. Very undemocratic, harmfull.
pls provide a quote from my posts that I suggest that no one can explore the possibility of a merge⌠Exploring the possibility is first getting the foundations and reasons right before jumping to HOW. That is exactly what I explore and give arguments for in my postsâŚ
⌠I am waiting for the quoteâŚ
When Cosmos hub gets its issues in order, the MAIN issue here, I am not even sure that I would not want a merger in future when this is beneficial for all involvedâŚ
I have no intention, whish or motivation what so ever to stop anyone from doing, working on or adding to the discussion anything they want. With all the framing you do that I pointed out, I am not sure that you have the same intentionâŚ
Again the nasty framing⌠Asking and arguing the reasons why IS being part of the solution, supressing that is obstructing a solutionâŚI have not seen any constructive action on the MAIN issue from you and about the âtearing down what others createâ âŚAs you can read I have in no way commented on any of the HOW that is created in this thread. Accusing of tearing down others work while this is in no way the case⌠again that nasty framingâŚ
Ofc if this goes on chain a vote will be there and the outcome will be that. No one has ever had any idea that this would not be the caseâŚ
I never had the thought that I could, or the wish or motivation to do that⌠this particularâŚnasty framing hereâŚ
TLDR:
Distract Cosmonauts from more urgent, pressing issues at hand, such as:
- Prop#952 (A Call to Action: ICF Leadership)
- #955 (Hydro deployment)
and push forward neatly framed manipulation tactics to advance 2.0 insider committees for further dominance. Again, at face-value, this merge idea is exciting, but there are more urgent matters.
Though I always appreciate reading @Govmosâ thorough, and logical break downs, your response(s) equally seem to have an underlying agenda, despite masterfully utilizing neutral tones in speech.
2 Likes
I would also like to say that I will not sell my atom and osmo⌠after all, letâs remember the past years and their development, for the words that were said, even in conversations where we were told to stick to the path, when chaos may arise later. Atom must not die is the real money for fulfillment, securing trading and exchange for buying cosmos coins to further expand and use in the ecosystem. Osmo dex/token has originality, character and the atom in this proposal should still stand and supply this complex, you know I trust you and you, the guy has it and started the Internet network, he has a long-term idea, do you know how I know it? I didnât meet him, but my consciousness saw him when he was in Switzerland, he and his idea remained with me until now and I will support him even if it became real many years later, I will continue to write something about the proposal in a separate comment⌠âŚ
1 Like
For your information, I am also deeply against the death of the Hub.
And I wrote a little tweet on it earlier today.
Just out of curiosity, why would a fixed issuance token like OSMO want to merge with unlimited issuance token like ATOM. Why would OSMO tokenholders want to become ATOM tokenholders when it is clear that the design of the ATOM tokenomics (original design was inflation between 7% and 20%) is for its price to go to slowly to zero?
As some of the previous comments pointed out, ATOMâs tokenomics would have to be fixed.
4 Likes
Someone should come up with something very similar to what @JohnnyWyles did few weeks ago on the Osmosis forum. It was a very complete and pratical way to present a tokenomics reform that can be understand by all.
First, showing in a very effective way how the current inflation and revenue actually look like with this kind of tools :
Then propose different scenarios with their own diagram so everybody can understand and VIZUALIZED changes :
Then, summarized all scenarios in a tab and let the community share their thoughts :
Iâm not very technical but Johnnyâs post give a very nice picture of how it is now, and how it would looks like with different scenarios. We didnât have any of this during the precedent discussion on inflation here, it was mostly philosophical posts without any data and tangible projections. Also, like Govmos said we should stop tricking individual parametersâŚ
1 Like