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

Hub Proposals Community Spend
41

I believe this migration could genuinely be beneficial for the Cosmos Hub. At this point, the ecosystem is still too fragmented, and consolidating rather than maintaining multiple small appchains feels like a logical evolution—especially now that the Hub supports permissionless CosmWasm.

From my perspective, Stargaze is the best NFT platform in the Cosmos ecosystem:

  • the most complete for creators,
  • the most user-friendly for collectors,
  • the only one combining a mature marketplace, a launchpad, creator tools, and a strong cultural history.

In that sense, having this entire ecosystem live directly on the Hub does make strategic sense and could clearly strengthen ATOM’s utility and on-chain activity.

However, I share a concern that others have already raised: the structure of the requested funding.

The amount itself doesn’t shock me, but the way it’s presented feels closer to a transfer price or a valuation of the product, rather than a detailed migration budget tied to specific tasks.

To be clear:

> I support the idea of the migration, but we need much more clarity on how the funds will be used.

What would help a lot are:

  • a granular breakdown of tasks,
  • estimated time and resources,
  • team roles and costs,
  • and clear accountability mechanisms (milestones, clawbacks, etc.).

With this level of transparency, I believe many more voters would feel comfortable supporting the proposal without fearing a precedent or inefficient use of the community pool.

In short: the idea is solid, the platform is worth integrating, but the budget needs to be presented as a budget, not as a sale price.

3 Likes
42

:cross_mark: 1,5M unlocked cash
:white_check_mark: 1,5M in locked/vested ATOM over years with clear objectives after platform migration: EVM support, volume, etc…

3 Likes
43

Hey! We have been involved in the discussion of this migration proposal from the very beginning and highly value Stargaze as an important part of the Cosmos ecosystem. However, under the current conditions, this deal does not appear optimal — a view that is also shared by the community.

We would be glad to support the proposal if the price were adjusted, but at this stage it does not seem to present a win-win scenario.

2 Likes
44

I think the prop fails to drive buy-in because it’s not justifying the sticker price, same as last time.

You started with 1.5M and moved from there, this should be structured as actual deliverables, maintenance costs and KPI’s. The section with the least detail is the actual funding plan.

1 Like
45

This kind of comment is not really productive. You can disagree with the proposal and still show the proposers (one of the longest-lived teams in Cosmos and just genuinely great people) some respect and decency.

Fact of the matter is that it would suck for Cosmos to lose Stargaze, and regardless of how you feel about this proposal it doesn’t do any good to make the decision to leave easier for them this way.

Not advocating for the proposal one way or the other here. I’m just advocating for some respectful discourse.

1 Like
46

Leave your comment on this prop, mate

47

Stargaze is the only app I use on COSMOS with OSMOSIS. I’ve spent 3 years building community here via NFTS and if that has no value for ATOM HUB then I don’t know what to say.

Engagement is at all time low on Cosmos yet the NFT communities are still here doing spaces and vibing for the greater ecosystem.

How do we put value on IP’s? Artists? Devs associated to these projects? Community? You can’t because they are priceless. I think some are a little shortsighted when they see costs associated with merger when its clearly alot more than that. Be careful what you choose to do here Cosmos.

4 Likes
48

Couldn’t agree more.
My sources indicate it’s couple minutes of work max for 200K.
This should be reduced by at least 66% across the entire cost.

1 Like
50

Thanks for the comment.

The proposal was intended to present a clear, topline number for a full ecosystem migration, loosely modeled after the Mars → Neutron approach. The deliverables are outlined through the migration of each major application to bring all activity onto the Hub.

This isn’t framed as a service deal. It’s a partnership, and the funding reflects the value of Stargaze as it exists today and its future alignment with the Hub.

Nice Bad Kid by the way.

51

Stargaze is a place where people feel welcomed, where they can find a community to belong to. A PFP that resonates with you, that you use as your own persona to represent who you are (or maybe just a cute cat). As a digital product, it has all the higher qualities of top projects on the NFT space. It’s fast, secure, and easy to use. This didn’t come out of one month of work. It came with years of reiterating on the product, listening to the community, implementing changes, integrating with other protocols. Not just on the tech side, but onboarding creators and onboarding users is also a big part of its success.
It is not an easy endeavor, and being the only NFT marketplace with significant volume on Cosmos eco is the testament to that. Many have tried, but Stargaze stayed.

I think people who are calling $1.5M too much are just looking at a narrow view of what the technicalities of migration are, which is NOT what is being offered here.
If you want to have an active community, which people will actually use the chain, and promote it organically, have fun and creativity, then voting YES to this proposal is the path to go.

3 Likes
52

ngl this is the part the bums me out quite a bit

1 Like
53

Again I want to point out,

THESE MIGRATION COSTS ARE DIABOLICAL.

If I’m willing to do it for 10% to save the hub hundreds of thousands, would I be welcomed to do so?

54

I belive that we need to keep Stargaze in the Cosmos Ecosystem

We already lost so many chains, and Cosmos Hub without Ecosystem - is the same as Ethereum without ERC-tokens and L2s

The separatism and social-darwinism that Cosmos Labs propagandize is a wrong direction, because of which we have already lost a huge number of networks

But in the same time, 1,5M - is so huge amount, that it’s cheaper to build new project

POSTHUMAN validator will up the proposal in POSTHUMAN DAS - DAO to govern the POSTHUMAN validator: DAO DAO

We will vote WEIGHTED on this proposal by the result of voting in POSTHUMAN DAS, as POSTHUMAN represents not my opinion, but the opinion of all our stakers, and if our stakers will have other opinion then my, POSTHUMAN will vote as our stakers want

But with my own stake, I will vote YES in case of next changes:

  • Open tender to migrate Stargaze to Cosmos Hub (I totaly sure, that it’s possible to migrate Stargaze less than for 1,5M $, and our developers team ready to do the same result for less funds)

@Ruwan is very cool person, and I totaly respect his wish to provide good payment for Stargaze developers, and in better times, with ATOM by 10 or more, I would tell: Of course, 1,5M $ - not a big deal for Community Pool of 10M $ATOMs

But for the moment present, CP of Cosmos is 29M , and 1,5M - is more than 5% of CP

And the main priority now - is to attract buyers of $ATOM, and for this we need agressive marketing

2 Likes
55

  1. The migration could be a net positive, but NOT at the current level of abstraction. More detail, more constraints, and stronger guarantees are required before this could be responsibly approved.

  2. $1.5M is high for migration work the Stargaze suite is large, but: Most code is already written? Migration is mostly porting, rewriting plumbing, and re-deploying contracts Migration cost benchmarks from other chains do NOT support such cost?

  3. about $Stars I’m not commenting, as I’m not staking, nor have big amounts of Stars

  4. I don’t think this proposal has even the potential to be accepted… many details need to be more clear

Maybe a more detailed version of the costs + with vesting time with clear goals would help get more people supporting this ?

I’m using Stargaze on daily basis, and yes, it’s by far, the best NFT platform out there, I just wish the best for it, but if I see things from cosmos hub perspective, I would need things more clear to be voting yes on it.

ADDED: I have also to say, that this proposal is much better than the first one!! This is also a good sign that things can move into the right direction.

1 Like
56

while the dao having to be rebuilt is unfortunate, It’s not like we don’t know the ATOM address of every STARGAZE address through bech32

At the very least it would be more wise also give collections migration into the hands of a creator for the entire collection too, even if they have to batch sign 400 transactions I feel.

Otherwise I feel Stargaze is conveniently leaving the explanations to the communities on why users are coming back b/c pastures are green again yet all of their NFTs are "gone”…yet a portion of us still have ours.

I’ve been here as a user

DARKCOIN → DASH
ENIGMA → SCRT

57

One suggestion that pops out to me is that you guys should sunset the name service. I don’t believe it’s worth migrating it, especially for that price point.

58

This is a clear yes from me.

We need apps and Stargaze is one of the best and most used in Cosmos. There is a rich history on Stargaze that is tied to Cosmos. If this deal doesn’t go through it’s a nail in the coffin for Cosmos culture and creativity.

$1.5M is a bargain. We wouldn’t be able to build this tech-wise or community-wise for that amount.

1 Like
59

You really think we could build this for 300k? This isn’t just technical scope it’s porting over an entire ecosystem.

60

Everyone talking about the technical scope is forgetting what it takes to run a fully functional app.

61

The hub doesn’t have anything right now. Stargaze is one of the most used apps in Cosmos it will clearly benefit from it.