Stargaze is great!
But why the price of migration of NFT Collections id 500K ?
2 Likes
The NFT migration represents the liquidity and the community. It will drive the most activity on the Hub while supporting overall value and use across the other areas as well. There are more than 3,800 collections and over 5 million NFTs on Stargaze, with a combined market cap exceeding 5 million dollars for the top collections.
1 Like
however with how ICS721 works what happens to the NFTs not on STARGAZE? Are they locked or burned in some form if they are sitting on Neutron etc?
You can snapshot sure, or even stop IBC at the time on STARGAZE sure. But what about the ones ALREADY out in the wild?
But using our collection for example, if holders choose to never bring their NFT over and claim, and STARGAZE as a chain halts.
The tokens already IBCâd off chain still exist in their form correct via their ICS721 âversionâ
At that point do we have a âforkâ of sorts for a collection?
It somewhat feels like trying to remove pee from a swimming poolâŚ
I assume every Stargaze based DAO then too has to move as well
Whatâs this process ultimately look like?
As a creator I have 178 holders staked to the collections stargaze DAODAO, itâs foolish to assume theyâre all going to be tactful at seeing that STARS is moving, and thus they need to unstake their NFT in order to move not only their NFT, but hopefully stake to the ânewâ COSMOS based collections DAO which canât be made until the migration has begun and the collection has itâs address.
Do these creators sacrifice decentralization to hold the treasuries in centralized wallet positions in the meantime?
When happens when users show up weeks or months later wondering wtf?
This âmandantoryâ migration seems silly, almost like trying to create a new chart of sorts other projects have proposed.
All IBC enabled collections already have ATOM routes and addresses
Why âdevolveâ a collection, itâs DAO, and its integrity b/c you and the people in control of the bridge dislike each other?
Why not save money by just making the ICS721 WL permissionless? B/C we wonât be forced over to ATOM in that scenario?
1 Like
I feel like this is the right move for Stargaze. I truly believe the team cares about the platform more than anyone else, and Iâm sure theyâve got an amazing plan ahead! Honestly⌠after exploring the whole Cosmos NFT scene, Stargaze is still the best marketplace out there!
SO LETâS VOTE YES!
2 Likes
I thought about it since my last reply 3 hours agoâŚ
I stand by it. DIABOLICAL costs.
Nothing will happen to NFTs that are already on another chain. Stargaze cannot lock or burn NFTs on Neutron. NFTs already in circulation, such as CEWTs on Neutron, could be claimed on the Hub through a separate claim contract by transferring the NFT to the Hub.
DAOs will need to be created manually on the Hub. Once the lock takes place on Stargaze, transferring NFTs will not be possible. NFTs staked in a DAO will still be claimable on the Hub. Each DAO will need to decide how to manage its operations during the migration. As with all migrations, there will be a finite time to move.
1 Like
Like-minded people, it is a very big request to convey your idea to the majority of users in order to increase the coverage of responses in this discussion. Could you collect the proposed changes in the form of a table? What do you suggest if people vote in favor and what happens if people vote against the proposal? Currently, the wording is very vague, and it is clear that you want to encourage developers with money, but it is not clear whether the majority will support this. However, I believe that the information and proposal should be presented in a simpler language to reach not only validators but also regular users. In my opinion, a comparison table is the easiest and most understandable way to convey information for decision-making.
I have collections in stargaze, and some of them have already died without the possibility of returning any investments
Could you write more details and specifics? So far, many $STARS holders do not see even a small gram of benefit for themselves in this proposal. You openly write that $STARS will become a token for Fan, but damn, we paid real dollars for it and bought/sold NFTs for it as if it were real money, and now theyâre telling us that everything youâve accumulated is just a meme coin for Fan, and now we want to switch to ATOM. There are a lot of questions and few answers, and your general responses only increase the already high temperature in the room.
1 Like
On behalf of the Govmos team and the PRO Delegators validator, we believe that using community pool funding to support a project migration sets a dangerous precedent. The Cosmos Hub previously experimented with a grant DAO, and history has shown that this approach led to poor outcomes and misaligned incentives. Now that the Cosmos roadmap has evolved significantly, it is crucial that the Hub is not perceived as a piggy bank for public chains seeking financial support. To be clear, this position is not directed against Stargaze specifically, a project we respect and hope to see thrive within the Cosmos ecosystem. However, the principle remains firm: using the Hubâs financial resources to fund a migration is not acceptable.
From a strategic perspective, we recognize that Stargazeâs potential migration to the Hub is a logical step. Like many public chains in Cosmos, it faces the challenge of sustaining operations with a low-revenue model. While its services undoubtedly fall within the realm of public goods, this creates long-term financial alignment issues that hinder economic sustainability. Therefore, migrating to a chain with stronger fundamentals makes sense, yet expecting that chain to cover the cost of migration does not.
To be perfectly clear, this position extends to any project seeking community pool funding for Hub integration. With CosmWasm now permissionless, all teams are free to deploy, migrate, and evolve independently inside Cosmos Hub. The community pool should not serve as an incentive mechanism for this process, and we will firmly oppose any proposal that moves in that direction.
Thank you for reading,
Govmos.
3 Likes
500k for migration?lmao money washing again
What about START stakers/holders? One more rekt?
3 Likes
The Stargaze migration proposal carries potential cultural value but also major financial and execution risks.
While migrating Stargaze to the Cosmos Hub could bring a ready-made NFT ecosystem and expand ATOMâs real utility, the projectâs economic condition raises serious concerns. The $STARS token has fallen from $0.80 to $0.0008 â a 99.9% drop â and Stargazeâs total market cap is only around $2.5M, nearly equal to the $1.5M funding request. Marketplace fees are only 2%, providing very limited sustainable income.
This looks less like a growth initiative and more like a rescue attempt. The proposal lacks measurable KPIs for user growth, transaction volume, or ATOM utility, and itâs unclear how this migration will generate tangible value for the Hub or ATOM holders.
Without stronger accountability, transparent milestones, and a clear plan for long-term sustainability, approving this funding could set a risky precedent for the Cosmos Hub Community Pool.
2 Likes
I donât see how the Cosmos Hub would benefit from this proposal.
First, Stargaze has already failed in its current form â if it were successful, there would be no need to migrate to the Cosmos Hub. Thereâs no clear evidence that this migration would bring any tangible value to the Hub.
Second, if this proposal passes, the Cosmos Hub would have to spend 1.5M for a product that has no guaranteed value or proven traction â an extremely high cost given the current situation.
Third, after the migration, the Cosmos Hub would also have to bear additional maintenance costs â developer costs, infrastructure services, and more.
Overall, this proposal looks like a one-sided deal that puts the burden on the Cosmos Hub without a clear path to value creation.
3 Likes
Is this what you are looking for:
What Happens If the Proposal Passes vs. Fails
| Topic | If the Proposal PASSES | If the Proposal FAILS |
|---|---|---|
| Stargaze Applications | Marketplace, Launchpad, Name Service, and Studio all migrate to the Cosmos Hub | Apps stay on Stargaze until a future migration to another chain in 2026 |
| NFT Collections (3,800+) | All collections become Cosmos Hubânative with full continuity | Collections remain on Stargaze until later migrated to a different ecosystem |
| Users & Creators | All user activity: minting, trading, profiles, names, and moves to the Hub | Activity gradually shifts away from Stargaze and not to the Hub |
| ATOM Utility | ATOM becomes the main token for minting, trading, and creator tools | No added ATOM utility; benefits accrue to another chain |
| STARS Token | Migrates to the Hub as a culture/fun token; inflation permanently ends | Remains on a sovergin standalone chain until future re-deployment |
| Ecosystem Impact | Hub gains a live consumer app, marketplace liquidity, and the Cosmos cultural ecosystem | Hub loses its cultural base and current creator activity |
| Timeline | Migration within 3â6 months | Stargaze aligns with another chain in 2026 |
| Funding Use | Milestone-based with deliverables and multisig oversight | No funds used; no migration work occurs |
| Long-Term Outcome | Hub becomes the cultural + user-facing layer of the Interchain | Culture and users move elsewhere |
Stargaze is proposing to move everything: marketplace, launchpad, name service, creator tools, and all 3,800+ NFT collections directly onto the Cosmos Hub.
This would make ATOM the default token for minting and trading, bring more users and creators to the Hub, and turn the Cosmos Hub into the main cultural and NFT center of the Interchain.
The funding requested is milestone-based and reduced by 90% from the earlier proposal. It covers the full technical migration and the transfer of thousands of collections with new added features.
If the proposal passes, Stargaze becomes part of the Hub.
If it fails, Stargaze will migrate to a different chain in 2026.
The team originally had a share from the token emission.
They mention how many collections they have, their trading volume, and many other metrics. But Iâve always had one question: if they really have trading volume and take a 2% commission from it, then whatâs wrong â why has this affected the price of STARS so badly?
Maybe itâs because those 2% commissions and the inflation are simply being sold on the market.
I didnât lose much money on STARS, but developers who are truly building for the idea shouldnât need $1.5 million just for a migration.
Why should those who bought STARS â and already paid for the idea â now be joined by ATOM holders voting to fund that same idea again, so that another 500,000 ATOM end up on the market during the migration, when after all these years the project has shown no positive financial results?
The goal is alignment, not abandonment. There seems to be some misunderstanding about what happens to $STARS, so let me clarify.
$STARS will no longer function as a security token, but it retains its core utility, including:
-
Minting
-
Trading
-
Serving as the base of the Superstars loyalty program
Moving to the Hub strengthens $STARS by providing:
-
Greater exposure for the token and the collections that use it
-
Higher security and long-term stability
-
No more inflation, meaning current holders are no longer diluted
ATOM becoming the default minting token for new collections does not replace $STARS.
ATOM brings scale and new users; STARS remains a functional, active token within the Stargaze ecosystem.
In short, $STARS continues as a minting and marketplace token with improved long-term conditions, not reduced ones.
Thanks for sharing your position. I understand the concern about precedent, but this proposal is not asking the Hub to act as a âpiggy bankâ for deployments, itâs funding a full ecosystem migration, including 3,800+ collections, a live marketplace, name service, creator tools, and tens of thousands of users. All of which are in use, battle-tested, and do not exist on the Cosmos Hub. This is fundamentally different from a simple contract deployment under permissionless CosmWasm.
The Hub is not being asked to subsidize experimentation; itâs being asked to support the relocation of an existing, mature, widely used Cosmos-native ecosystem that directly increases ATOM utility, onchain activity, and cultural relevance. The community pool exists to strengthen the Hubâs long-term position, and this migration does exactly that.
I respect your stance, but the principle here cuts both ways: ignoring high-impact opportunities because of past, unrelated failures would be an equally harmful precedent.
HAHAHAHAHA
Let me get this straight. You are asking for 1.5 million USDC to migrate your product. STARS, the token of your product, currently has an FDV of $2.4 million, and a daily trading volume of ⌠$12,000.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
If you were to somehow take the entire STARS supply and sell it all, I donât think youâd manage to find $100,000 from buyers let alone $1.5 million.
But here you are asking for $1.5 million for 4 hours of work.
Fear not, Iâve been around long enough to understand that you are not doing this in good faith. You simply see an opportunity to once again extract some good olâ cash money dolla dolla from the broken system that is Cosmos governance and get âyour nutâ, as they call it.
Once again a brilliant exit plan from the ever conniving minds over at Stargaze. You all deserve each other. Mwah!
2 Likes
Stargaze isnât failing the appchain model no longer makes economic sense for small chains. You are seeing this across many Cosmos chains now. The product is one of the most used in Cosmos, it will thrive inside a larger environment.
What the Cosmos Hub actually gains:
-
A fully built NFT marketplace
-
A launchpad, name service, and creator tools ready on day one
-
3,800+ collections and their users migrating directly to the Hub
-
130,000+ monthly transactions moved onto the Hub or an additional 16% of ATOM usage
-
Cosmosâ largest cultural community becoming Hub-native
-
ATOM becoming the default minting and trading token
-
A flagship CosmWasm consumer app, showing developers whatâs possible
The maintance cost would be taken care of by Stargaze.
This migration strengthens both Stargaze and the Hub.
Damn bro, I really hope you get your money cause this sht legendary. Cant even read with a straight face.
I fully support Stargaze but I have to say that I donât really understand how asking so much funding for uncertain benefits to the Hub and Stargaze could pass. IMO the multichain direction has more potential to bring new users than moving the thiner and thiner userbase to another chain. Why not deploying a Stargaze antenna on the Hub without any funding and then, if there are concrete benefits for both parties, funding could be justified. Again I love Stargaze which is the best marketplace Iâve ever tried, but I think that you should focus on bringing users and building an economic model that makes the platform financially autonomous. Better to learn how to fish than asking for fishes. At this point, Stargaze has to take risks with innovative ideas to survive, I donât think that funding without a new revenue model would help apart from giving the platform a reprieve.
If the proposal fails Stargaze will migrate to another chain, will you ask for the same funding?
How do you justify such a huge funding request (apart from âitâs working and has usersâ)? Could we get a more detailed funding plan?
How much time of work for each milestone? How many people will work on it and at which price? How will the amounts exactly be spent? Any deadlines?
Again, just expressing my concerns here, I love Stargaze and want the best for it and us, its users.
2 Likes