Proposal: Migrate Stargaze, Its Applications, and Collections to the Cosmos Hub

Hub Proposals Community Spend
78

I believe the numbers in this proposal are significantly inflated and not aligned with the actual work required for a technical migration. I raised similar concerns during the previous proposal, which at the time I still considered reasonable enough that a ~$1.5M acquisition could have been justified.

However, the situation today is fundamentally different:

  • One of Stargaze’s founders has left, which raises questions about continuity and whether this proposal is intended to extract remaining value from the marketplace rather than strategically grow it.

  • NFT trading volumes have decreased, not increased, and the projections from the earlier proposal were not fulfilled.

  • The proposal provides claims and narratives, but no updated charts, KPIs, or transparent market data to support those claims. Before discussing numbers of this scale, the community needs verifiable metrics, not empty threats of “we will migrate elsewhere.”

Most importantly:
This proposal is not an acquisition. It is a migration.
Paying $1.5M for a migration—without equity, without revenue share, without ownership—does not make sense from a Hub investment perspective. The numbers presented feel detached from the actual technical effort.

I agree broadly with the costs that @Mag suggested for the migration, but not with the milestones and maintenance payments as it is not sustainable long term. Based on my work and, CosmWasm expertise, and the actual scope of work, I estimate realistic migration costs in the range of $100k–$150k, which would be far easier to justify.

Missing Business Case

Even more concerning is that the proposal still does not contain a proper business case for the Cosmos Hub. The core question remains entirely unanswered:

What happens after the “maintenance period”?

  • How will ongoing development be funded?

  • What is the long-term revenue model?

  • How much of that revenue flows back to ATOM, if at all?

  • What are the projected operational costs after migration?

  • How is value created for the Hub rather than only for Stargaze?

  • What KPIs will show success or failure 6–12 months post-migration?

  • Why should Cosmos Hub pay for the continued development and not receive any revenue?

A proposal requesting $1.5M must provide a detailed, transparent financial model—not just historical achievements and cultural arguments.

What I Am Requesting

  1. A proper business case for the Cosmos Hub, showing quantitative value creation—not just narrative.

  2. Updated trading, volume, and user data compared to the original forecast to assess whether the assumptions are still valid.

  3. Realistic migration cost estimates, based on engineering time rather than inflated numbers.

  4. A clear post-migration plan, including who maintains what, how it is funded, and how the Hub benefits economically long-term.

Until these points are addressed, I cannot support a $1.5M request for what is described primarily as a migration.

Fun fact: at 1,008 words, this proposal effectively asks for $1,488 per word.
This shows disproportionate the requested amount is relative to the actual work described. But hey, that’s down from $2,424 per word from the previous proposal.

2 Likes