It sounds to me like there are steps we can take with on-chain governance that could eventually lead to the merge of Cosmos Hub and Osmosis. Similar to the ATOM 2.0 proposal, the community is going to want to see this done with multiple separate proposals, not just one. So maybe the very first proposal is an overhaul of ATOM tokenomics. Then I think each proposal should just cite the eventual goal of soliciting larger projects to integrate with or become Cosmos Hub consumer chains.
Should we start with this tokenomics overhaul proposal then? It sounds like a mix of what Osmosis has done along with an ATOM burn mechanic tied to DeFi participation or the consumer chain model would be well-received.
Iām not sure whether tokenomics get improved first, or if @Govmos feedback on order of events makes more sense. I think showing how a merger would truly benefit both communities and getting a signaling proposal passed first probably makes the most sense. Then a second signaling proposal of the steps involved, with tokenomics being one of them. Then when the ATOM tokenomics prop goes live on-chain, it can refer voters back to the signaling proposals that passed and point out that the tokenomics proposal is one of the steps that was already approved.
Yes I think itās the only way to do that
Osmosis should be a (top n) PSS consumer chain
Atom is not a DEX token and Osmo is not a good token for security
Let osmosis optimize its token for its feature using Atom for security
What cosmos hub can do is buy some $osmo and with AAT module (donāt know if itās already live !? ) use it to participate to osmosis governance in name of the cosmos hub governance
That means owning and staking atom could give you some voting power on osmosis too
Thatās a way to make the cosmos hub a decentralized investment bank
Watch this video of Sunny on Interop where he says āICS as a technology doesnāt make sense for Osmosis because it doesnāt support special validator sets. We want to ask our validators to do more and moreā.
With the new possibility to use inactive vals through PSS, could Osmosis use both active Vals that are currently already validating both chains and use their customized Vals even if they are not part of the active set ?
Those inactive vals would only serve to validate Osmo and so could use custom settings that suit Osmo
This is a key issue with a merge or any initial PSS step.
Osmo is only not considered a good token for security because the market cap is relatively low - but it is sufficiently high for the assets secured.
Atom is only a good token for security because the market cap is higher and has a more established reputation from being around longer. The issue it faces is maintaining that high valuation by selling this security to other chains in return for a portion of their revenue/inflation.
The whole needs to be greater than the sum of the parts, and with the sentiment around the Cosmos currently this doesnāt feel like it is the case.
I consider ICS/PSS to be a transitory part of the app to chain pathway, and Osmosis to be one of the Cosmos SDK chains that is towards the end of that pathway due to validation requirements. There are several more obvious candidates for Cosmos Hub to be pursuing to onboard before onboarding Osmosis would be mutually beneficial.
Iām not sur to understand
To me Atom is a good token for security because itās made for that and nothing else
Osmo is not a good coin because it need to be good securizing AND good at incentivize AND good at providing liquidity ā¦etc
Some of those roles are not compatible
If Iāve undestand your statement @Victor118, I agree with your viewpoint on specialization.
Specialization is a foundational concept in classical trade theory, particularly the idea of comparative advantage.
The cooperation between different parties, allowing each to excel in their respective goals.
It also enhances the efficient allocation of capital by optimizing resource usage, such as the inflation.
Additionally, specialization will enable projects to clarify and refine their strategy, helping them concentrate on their strengths.
For ours lovely BC : ATOM and OSMO, having each focus on what they are best at ATOM for security due to its market cap and reputation, and OSMO for liquidity and incentivization seems to align with this idea of specialization.
āThatās why PSS fit to osmosis now.ā @Victor118
We share your view on this matter. The integration of Osmosis into Partial Set Security (PSS) is indeed a complex issue, far beyond simply onboarding as a consumer chain. It requires addressing multiple critical stages as it is the case for every chain already operatingāstarting with a rework of the tokenomics, followed by a transition towards a more governance-focused role for OSMO. Only after these foundational steps are addressed by the Osmosis community would we consider the technical implementation of Osmosis as a viable PSS candidate.
That said, both the Osmosis and Cosmos Hub communities stand to gain significantly from one another. We strongly encourage a collaborative approach toward this long-term goal, continuing the partnership weāve built, despite a few setbacks along the way. At Govmos, we possess a deep understanding of the Hubās economic framework within PSS, and we would welcome the opportunity to participate in these discussions and contribute to making this a reality.
For ours lovely BC : ATOM and OSMO, having each focus on what they are best at ATOM for security due to its market cap and reputation, and OSMO for liquidity and incentivization seems to align with this idea of specialization.