Lots of good comments. Was an application to receive funds from AADAO denied?
Like others have pointed out, why such a big ask from only the Hub and not other chains?
We agree with those who question whether or not Cosmostation validator is a public good.
We also agree with those who argue community pool funds should focus on the AEZ.
However, like @jacobgadikian I’ve used mintscan more times than I can count and it matters for the Cosmos.
Reasons Why This Funding Proposal Should Not be Approved
I appreciate everyone who has contributed to this discussion. Each voice here carries weight, and it’s essential that our collective opinions are considered before the proposal moves forward.
As engaged members of the Cosmos community, we have a duty to meticulously assess proposals that could fundamentally alter our ecosystem. After a thorough examination, I find myself aligned with the prevailing sentiment that the current funding proposal is critically flawed. Specifically, it fails in the following key areas:
Lack of Widespread Benefit: The proposal incorrectly assumes that the Hub should solely shoulder the financial responsibilities for a project that benefits multiple chains. This unilaterally imposed burden does not reflect the collaborative and decentralized spirit of the Cosmos ecosystem.
Absence of Governance and Oversight: The proposal’s glaring omission of any governance structure poses serious concerns about accountability and centralized control. This is seriously incongruent with the decentralized ideals that anchor our community.
Unjustified High Budget: The financial ask of 320,000 Atoms is disproportionate to the project’s potential impact and borders on the ludicrous. The projection for a 10-year budget is particularly unrealistic and shows a disconnection from financial prudence.
As it currently stands, this proposal is fundamentally at odds with the decentralization that is the cornerstone of our community ethos. Without clearly defined governance or mechanisms for accountability, we inadvertently open the door to a centralized hierarchy, directly contradicting the principles upon which our community was founded.
Adding to these critical flaws, the proposal is unsettlingly vague about its financial forecasting. A 10-year financial projection is not just ambitious; it’s unrealistic and raises serious questions about this initiative’s practicality and financial soundness.
Furthermore, the absence of measurable metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) hampers our ability to gauge success, adjust strategies, and inspire innovation. When coupled with the proposal’s other deficiencies in governance and budgeting, the lack of such metrics creates a ripple effect of systemic inefficiencies that could undermine public trust.
The proposal is riddled with enough flaws to make its approval undesirable. Its flaws are not isolated; they are intertwined and compound the risks associated with this project. For all these compelling reasons, I strongly advise that the community reject this funding proposal in its current incarnation.
We should direct our collective resources and focus only on initiatives that meet the standards of transparency, accountability, and broad-based benefits that we all value.
ICF Delegations Program: Cycle 2 starts now
The document also shows that there are teams working on browser projects, which can apply for extra points and help them get high scores.
First of all, we sincerely appreciate all the support and criticism. Feedback from the community is of utmost importance to us and through this we will do our best to build a better Mintscan.
We want to clarify something before answering all of the questions we have gotten so far. The purpose of this proposal is not to request compensation for the chains we have been supporting until today. This proposal is our pledge to unconditionally support RS chains that will exponentially increase in number (including chains transitioning from standalone zones to replicated security chains), forming the AEZ with the Cosmos Hub at the center.
Through Mintscan, we have been striving to provide the best user experience for various members in our ecosystem while also putting in significant effort to convey how attractive and valuable the interchain is to ecosystems outside of Cosmos. We feel that our commitment has allowed many new projects entering the Cosmos ecosystem to choose Mintscan as their partner, and we take pride in this.
This funding for the support of RS chains on Mintscan will bring more benefits to the Cosmos community by lowering the entry barrier for new projects, ultimately enriching the AEZ. In short, given that Mintscan will directly support the integration of future replicated security chains, we decided that requesting this funding from the community pool rather than ICF would be an appropriate channel.
Future development and operational expenses for Mintscan can primarily be categorized as follows: operating expenses (infrastructure, server, database, data transmission costs), overhead costs (rent, leases, utility expenses, etc.), and labor costs. As mentioned in the initial post, we have rigorously evaluated the necessary costs for performing the work. This evaluation is based on estimations from our current operations.
Mintscan is currently supporting 58 chains and spends approximately 50k monthly solely on operating expenses including infrastructure, servers, database, and data transmission costs. Based on this, the funding requested in this proposal is comparable to ~10 years worth of operating expenses for just having 21 replicated security chains integrated. As we commit to an unconditional support for RS chains, we do not believe the funding requested is excessive.
We’ve witnessed multiple teams/projects in the past get funded by the community pool and proceed to disappear without delivering results. This has resulted in increased doubts about credibility and long term sustainability of projects that receive funding. So after much deliberation, we decided this vesting structure. We sought to dispel concerns about potential sales in the short to medium term by setting a lockup period of 5 years, which we judged to be sustainable without direct disposal of this funding based on our current financials.
This vesting structure also speaks to our belief that the interchain ecosystem is underestimated. Replicated security is still in its infancy, and it will gradually stabilize to attract more market participants and become more widely adopted. We have strong conviction that cosmos will only continue to grow and succeed with RS and the AEZ, and we want to give community the confidence that we’re here to stay permanently and support the hub. Just as we have in the past 5 years.
As mentioned above, this proposal is our pledge to unconditionally support all RS chains that will form the AEZ.
what if in 5 years there are only 8 RS’d chains and 1 Atom is worth 120 dollars?
They’re also accepting the risk that atom could be $.1 in 5 years or is eaten by a rogue ai.
I found the lock in bullish
weird they ask when ~ATL then. why not when AEZ project was emerging?
that’s why grants should be $ or stable denominated.
it’s going to be possible soon, why this proposal some months before?
and frankly 0.1… weak probability.
they seem to be a bit more confident
This vesting structure also speaks to our belief that the interchain ecosystem is underestimated. Replicated security is still in its infancy, and it will gradually stabilize to attract more market participants and become more widely adopted. We have strong conviction that cosmos will only continue to grow and succeed with RS and the AEZ
anyway the proposal clearly lacks of precise operating costs estimates. it lacks of what they would bring to AEZ, “support all RS chains” is not enough when you ask $2.5M.
also “maybe we will open source someday” said to you in a private discussion is not enough.
and i believe everyone here would love to get infos about their earnings from the chains delegations.
Mintscan is currently supporting 58 chains and spends approximately 50k monthly solely on operating expenses including infrastructure, servers, database, and data transmission costs. Based on this, the funding requested in this proposal is comparable to ~10 years worth of operating expenses for just having 21 replicated security chains integrated. As we commit to an unconditional support for RS chains, we do not believe the funding requested is excessive.
To be quite frank, your current business model has already paid for these chains for 5+ years in the bull run. This is why you do not need operational funding for 5 years. You could always wait 3-4 years and then request in USD terms. Any blockchain would have to be financially illiterate to enter a 10 year service contract in crypto when there are wild fluctuations and appearing at a low point in the cycle. This is a great deal for mintscan but a terrible deal for investors as they would essentially saying to be short in their position of Atom for next 10 years. There isn’t even equity in this deal, its just a freebie for something that has already been monetized.
Nobody has answered the question as to whether this funding will be delegated to the Cosmostation validator and what the disposition of those staking rewards will be.
I feel this is critical to fully understanding and making a decision on the scope of the ask here.
To Mintscan Representative,
I hope this message finds you well. First, thank you for sharing details about your funding proposal and its significance in advancing the Mintscan needs. Your commitment to the community does not go unnoticed. However, some fundamental elements require further explanation to fully understand Mintscan’s core purpose and value proposition.
Help me understand what Mintscan is intended to be. Let’s delve into the real substance: What is Mintscan in its most fundamental sense? Beyond being a Cosmos Explorer, which you’ve crafted quite expertly, What core business purpose and value does Mintscan aim to provide? What are the foundational business imperatives that drive its existence? My observations suggest that while Mintscan offers a polished interface and dashboard, it may lack some fundamental elements typical of a robust going-concern enterprise.
Foundational Elements
Market Understanding
Business Model and Financial Viability
Strategic Positioning
Your comprehensive response to these questions will not only enlighten me but will also potentially offer the entire Cosmos community a well-rounded understanding of Mintscan’s trajectory. I would really like to see Mintscan succeed, but it’s imperative that we scrutinize your proposal with the detail it demands, especially when it involves community resources. Rather than approaching the community with your hat in hand asking for funds, perhaps you can convince us why funding Mintscan will be a good investment for the community. There are hundreds of viable projects looking for funding, so why should Mintscan be given any preference above others?
I look forward to your detailed response.
Seriously? Do you really imagine that with just 8 RS’d chains, 1 atom could get worth $120? This kind of criticism even makes folks like me, who aren’t exactly cheering for this proposal, cringe a bit.
how many RS chain were there wen Atom was worth $40?
Although I use mintscan daily and love the product, I strongly believe the Hub should not be funding this. This should be funded via the ICF and the ICF alone. The Hub has a limited community pool and it needs to start being used to drive adoption of ATOM throughout the interchain, not for public goods that largely benefit the entire Interchain.
The AEZ likely will not scale beyond 8-10 consumer chains for the foreseeable future and I don’t believe the Hub should be betting on a sole service provider like Mintscan for such a long period given the amount being asked.
Cosmostation makes a considerable amount as a top validator in the ecosystem, which should be more than enough to cover expenses related to mintscan. Validating on the Hub alone made Cosmostation ~$1M+ in validator commissions this past year, not including the other chains in the ecosystem. Obviously there’s a chance Cosmostation has not sold any ATOM (or other assets), but they also have other revenue streams beyond validating.
If the Hub is to fund this, the Hub should be getting revenue share from anything Mintscan/Cosmostation generates for its product and services.
The Cosmos community needs the ICF to step up…this cannot fall on the Hub. My comments are not an indictment on mintscan, but moreso the confusion in the eco on who should be funding what.
The Hub needs to take a step back and draw a line in the sand,
Spot on here. Enough is enough, no more free handouts to poor business models. Capitalist Hub 
It means ICS isn’t necessarily a must for the Cosmos Hub, and AEZ is just propaganda. Of course, that could be the case. However, if there’s no alternative to AEZ powered by ICS, we might have to pray for ATOM to the moon again when the bull market returns.
status quo is not a must. AEZ and ICS are nascent, both can fuel Atom flow. better to try this than doing nothing.
anyway, we’re off topic there.
Mintscan is great but shouldn’t be funded thru Atom CP.
Im against this.
This should clearly be funded from several chains
Mintscan runs a pro=profit business, with ad revenue, (some) paid API services, valdiator revenue (Cosmostation), etc. I think that funding should come from the company itself and not from the chains in this case. Makes 0 sense IMO.
Agreed, this is an ICF type grant, the Hub has other business to attend to.
Besides, I find it extremely expensive for the triviality of the product. I think it is possible to do much better with much less (and there’s already an example with a small competitor).
fair point imo.
Mintscan has lots of utility for various chains so it can be collectively funded
Read all the discussions, and frankly, I am bullish on the cosmos that all people have very well reasoned on the prop. To summarise on my end I can say @Mintscan should reconsider writing this prop and ask from all the 58 chains they provide their support to. 4000 Atom from each chain.
Whichever the chain does not need your service, offboard them and this will definitely help reduce your cost on servers, database, and data transmission.