If you consider it’s an accumulated work of 4-5 years of curating and launching creators and collections, it’s a steal.
If Stargaze leaves, then what is lost?
Thanks for the comment. You’re correct that we want the ATOM community to value Stargaze for everything it has created over the last four years, not just the technical lift involved in a migration. How people value Stargaze will depend on their experience with NFTs and the communities they’re part of.
We currently have a team of eight working in various capacities. Stargaze would not have been able to build what it has without both the team and the communities that power it. We do not want to return to the community pool again, so this amount ensures Stargaze will be able to develop, maintain, and thrive for years to come. 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.
https://forum.neutron.org/t/proposal-26-make-neutron-the-home-of-mars-protocol/233
Thank you for your comment. We also want the best for Stargaze and believe it’s a strong fit for the Hub. Stargaze currently has the fifth-highest revenue of all NFT marketplaces. You’re correct that we need more users and that there is friction in the current experience, and this is one of the main reasons for pursuing a migration. And something we consider an innovative idea. I’m confident with a successful migration, Staragze will be financially autonomous.
Stargaze as an app doesn’t truly need its own chain; it became one because, at the time, there was no viable way for smart contracts to exist on the Hub. This proposal represents our final attempt to remain within Cosmos and continue serving the community. “Will Stargaze ask for the same funding from another chain?” The answer is no. Other chains already have mature and vibrant marketplaces and communities that exist there. Our goal with this proposal is to have the same on the Hub, and we are the best-positioned team to do that. It is a natural fit and alignment.
We want the ATOM community to value Stargaze for everything it has created over the last four years, not just the technical lift involved in a migration. How people value Stargaze will depend on their experience with NFTs and the communities they’re part of. We currently have a team of eight working in various capacities. Stargaze would not have been able to build what it has without both the team and the communities that power it. The migration will occur in the first 6 months with the new features live in 12 months.
We do not want to return to the community pool again, so this amount ensures Stargaze will be able to develop, maintain, and provide service for years to come.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.
https://forum.neutron.org/t/proposal-26-make-neutron-the-home-of-mars-protocol/233
1 Like
I respect your team and whichever way you decide to vote. Building a solid marketplace is not an easy task. There’s a reason only a few marketplaces rise to the top. See Zerks comment here.
If you want to attract new users, you need to give them something they want to do. An empty marketplace won’t help with that.
As I’ve mentioned in other replies, this isn’t just a “technical migration” or a simple service agreement. Someone might offer to move contracts for less, but where would those NFTs actually trade afterward?
Before proposing to handle the migration, any team would first need to rebuild the entire Stargaze stack on the Hub: marketplace, indexer, metadata services, custom APIs, IPFS cluster, Metabase, and all supporting infrastructure. Without that, there’s nothing for collections to migrate into.
That’s why this isn’t something that can realistically be outsourced cheaply, it requires the full application layer, not just contract work.
BM! As a builder, project owner on Stargaze (2+ years), collector, genesis minter and long-time cosmonaut, I fully support this direction.
For me, aligning Stargaze with the Cosmos Hub is basically bringing Cosmos users and apps back home.
My Cosmos story is simple:
I joined the ecosystem because of ATOM, IBC and the CosmWasm vision.
I moved to Stargaze because the Hub, as an implementation model, offered nothing beyond security and governance.
Permissionless contracts changed a lot, but the Hub still has almost no real users.
Stargaze does.
Over the past years, Stargaze became a unique app-chain where people actually have fun.
Nobody really talks about one key factor: distribution.
Yes, there are ~3.8k collections, but behind them are strong players who have been building distribution since day one.
What’s interesting: they don’t fight, they coordinate.
Accumulation takes time, and this is exactly where Stargaze is far ahead of anything in Cosmos.
Stargaze also attracted top-tier creators.
Honestly, sometimes I think Cosmos artists > Cosmos builders, the quality is that high.
In the past years, Stargaze became the real cultural hub of Cosmos simply because all the major NFT collections launched here.
No matter what happens next, I believe Stargaze is the true cultural and artistic hub of Cosmos.
I want to show my full support to the Stargaze team.
Economics matter, and users are the economic base
I want to be clear: this discussion is not only about culture or sentiment.
Users are the financial argument.
Any conversation about migration costs, incentives, sustainability or ROI is meaningless without real user flow.
Active collectors, creators and daily users are the foundation of any long-term economic model.
Stargaze has this base.
The Hub, right now, does not.
Migration or alignment only makes financial sense if it connects infrastructure with the only place in Cosmos where users still show consistent activity.
That’s why this direction is not just “nice to have”, it’s economically rational.
Final words
When I started building my app, I identified as a Cosmonaut first.
And honestly I was disappointed that I had to build on Stargaze, simply because it was the only place with real Cosmos-native NFTs.
But over time I understood something important:
Stargaze wasn’t just “the only option” it was the only chain with real users, real creators and real culture.
And that’s exactly why the app-chain model is breaking down.
Stargaze cannot grow long-term in isolation.
Cosmos needs a foundation of actual users, the root layer on which the next floors can be built.
There is no better core community than the Stargaze OGs:
the creators, the collectors, the people who have shown commitment every single day for years.
That’s why aligning with the Hub makes sense.
Not for politics, not for hype, but to connect the only active cultural hub in Cosmos with the infrastructure that can support its next stage.
Everything is an Experiment 
Peace !
1 Like
We will always support the STARS token, but these funds cannot be used for buybacks or any market activity. They must be used for the migration itself. The goal of this proposal is to ensure the long-term stability of the Stargaze platform within Cosmos, which is what ultimately supports the long-term value and utility of STARS.
Liquidity, market access, and exposure are real issues for STARS and they are priorities for us, but this proposal is not a token intervention plan. I would not be opposed to a separate one, though. The migration strengthens the entire ecosystem around STARS, which is the most meaningful way to improve morale and long-term confidence.
As I’ve mentioned in other replies, this isn’t just a “technical migration” or a simple service agreement. Someone might offer to move contracts for less, but where would those NFTs actually trade afterward?
Before proposing to handle the migration, any team would first need to rebuild the entire Stargaze stack on the Hub: marketplace, indexer, metadata services, custom APIs, IPFS cluster, Metabase, and all supporting infrastructure. Without that, there’s nothing for collections to migrate into.
That’s why this isn’t something that can realistically be outsourced cheaply, it requires the full application layer, not just contract work.
First, the value to the Hub is tangible and immediate. The Hub receives a fully built marketplace, launchpad, name service, creator tools, 3,800 collections, and roughly 130,000 monthly NFT transactions. ATOM becomes the default minting and trading token across all future collections, which directly expands its utility.
Second, this is not a deal for the token and price does not represent the value of the products, the user base, or the importance of preserving Cosmos cultural assets. Ending inflation and giving STARS a stable home is part of making the ecosystem healthier long term.
Third, this proposal already includes milestone-based disbursements with clear deliverables.
This is not a precedent for bailouts. It is a consolidation of a Cosmos-native app onto the Hub to increase ATOM utility and retain the ecosystem’s largest cultural and creator communities. Stargaze already has the 5th highest revenue of NFT Marketpalces and that will increase with on a larger chain.
1 Like
I think you are a very cool person too! As I mentioned in a few comments before, this is more than a technical migration. You would first need to create a fully featured marketplace. We also want the ATOM community to value Stargaze for everything it has created over the last four years, not just the technical lift involved in a migration.
We do not want to return to the community pool again, so this amount ensures Stargaze will be able to develop, maintain, and provide service for years to come.
As an Atom holder and creator of a collection that both trades in Atom and share’s thematic narratives. Stargaze moving to the hub makes a lot of sense. We all know that the Cosmos has massive potential with all it’s clever thingamajig’s and high tech whatdyamacallit’s. But if you wanna cook up a nice nutritious dish there should be some flavour too, and that’s what Stargaze has in abundance. With a little bit of watering and attention, I’m confident it would grow into something even more excellent and it’s fruits infuse the Cosmos with a vibrancy and colour that everyone would want a taste of.
1 Like
After reading through the proposal I still don’t have a clear understanding of why funding is needed and how the funds in the community pool would be used. The Stargaze Marketplace functions sufficiently in it’s current state so why make any changes?
1 Like
$1.5 million is an insanely high amount for building an NFT platform from scratch lmao. Stargaze is nowhere besides rock bottom, which is exactly why they’ve given up, publicly admitting their token will be a “culture/fun token”, aka completely worthless.
1 Like
Gm.
I’ve reviewed the proposal, and in general am supportive of such a thing. In terms of what the community pool could go towards, this is a great option, especially since the be will be around one million getting returned to the community pool from AA DAO shortly, and so this spend is roughly in line with that (i.e. won’t have to dig into the community pool so far).
I think it’s worth noting that this is the second proposal, and that the cost is much, much cheaper than last time. To me, that signals that such an integration is really wanted by the Stargaze team, and that it likely makes sense. In general, I am in support.
However, I don’t support the current milestone deliverables, which are:
| Milestone | Description | Amount (USDC) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Initial setup and technical planning | 400,000 |
| 2 | Launchpad and Studio migration | 200,000 |
| 3 | Marketplace migration | 200,000 |
| 4 | Name Service migration | 200,000 |
| 5 | NFT Collection migration | 500,000 |
| Total | 1,500,000 |
This is a 1.5m payment for various “migrations”. The truth is, migrations aren’t worth anything to the Hub. It’s the operation, growth, and maintenance of these integrations that are far more valuable. Also, 400k for “initial setup” is not a fair ask given there is no recourse for the Hub to claw this back if all the deliverables are not finalized. Instead, I would propose the following:
| Milestone | Description | Amount (USDC) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Initial setup and technical planning | 25,000 |
| 2 | Launchpad and Studio migration | 25,000 |
| 3 | Marketplace migration | 25,000 |
| 4 | Name Service migration | 10,000 |
| 5 | NFT Collection migration | 10,000 per top 10 NFT collection migrated (by mcap) |
| 6 Maintenance Payment | 75,000 per month for one year (define maintenance below) |
|---|---|
| 7 | Bonus Bucket | 1x Cosmos Hub fees generated (in ATOM), up to $505k |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 1,500,000 |
|---|
This is a much better structure. The Hub is paying roughly 100k for integration (which is what an integration should cost), and then funding the Stargaze team for one year. In return, Stargaze should not deploy on other platforms unless permission is granted by governance (for that year), and Stargaze’s trading activity should exclusively live on - forever - on the Cosmos Hub (unless governance releases it).
Minting and issuance can happen on other chains, but the Hub should be the place where trading happens. You can batch the (mint) → (ibc to Hub) → trade → (ibc out of Hub) → send transactions into one tx through Skip:Go, for example.
This way, the Hub is making an investment. We are buying your loyalty, and have incentive to see you succeed. In return, we are investing $1.5m at a time when ATOM - which will fund this - is near all time lows. There is give and take.
$500k is set aside as a bonus. Whatever Stargaze makes for the Hub - in the form of transaction fees - the Hub should pay to you at the end of the year, up to $500k. This gives you incentive to not launch these products, make a little money, have monthly payments, and then not aggressively seek out the launch of new good NFT collections. We need you guys to be locked in on generating more volume, and the Hub should reward you for this (including after this year!)
With these changes, I am in support.
8 Likes
Expedition community collection and the Expedition validator by @lifeandcrypto_ in @cosmos and @StargazeZone , after speaking with members of Atom and Stargaze communities, as well as involved parties and opinion leaders, will vote “Abstain” on this proposal
Proposal Pass
If the proposal passes, Stargaze will become the first appchain in Hub history to migrate onto the Cosmos Hub. As seen in [PROPOSAL 1007][PASSED], CosmWasm was not part of @cosmoslabs_io strategy, but the proposal was still approved by the majority of validators who rely on the requests of their delegators and $ATOM holders
It’s important to understand that if the current proposal passes, the migration of Stargaze will likewise be a community-driven choice and could set a precedent for the future development of retail ecosystems in Cosmos. If other retail projects follow Stargaze to the Hub, this could revive the sector from within Cosmos itself and help CosmosLabs achieve its B2B goals
Atom Community
Cosmos Labs is not actively commenting on or influencing the course of this proposal. This means that the presence of NFTs on the Hub lies entirely on the shoulders of the Atom community. The decision rests with them, their active engagement, and communication with their validators
But again, we are not confident that at this stage the Atom Community has a clear, unified stance on supporting the proposal
The question is not whether NFTs will exist on the Hub or in Cosmos overall if the proposal fails. Rather, the questions are directed at the proposal itself, and what $ATOM will gain after this migration
Stargaze Community and Culture
We should begin by recognizing that the Stargaze community consists of several segments:
First, $STARS holders and stakers
What are the prospects for $STARS as a token if it is, in fact, losing its primary utility? Many holders are down 70% or more from their entry price, yet they make up a large share of validators, and their votes certainly matter - but where is the benefit for them in this proposal?
Next, speaking about Stargaze validators: for many of them, supporting NFT culture is a higher priority than supporting the chain itself/income. They support NFTfi, contests, and media-driven activities. By caring for NFTs, they support the community that values them. And these people often natively stake other tokens - including $ATOM
There are many apps and developers on Stargaze who will face issues due to migrating to the Hub. We should recognize that many developers may end up moving to Cosmos as part of this proposal. It’s also important to hear support from Stargaze regarding migration for projects like NFTgang, NFT Dashboard, Necrovault, RPdao, NFT staked in DaoDao, Platform, and dozens of others
Stargaze vs the Stargaze Community
The main beneficiary of this deal is neither the community nor collection creators - it’s the StargazeZone team
The foundation and technical layer were created by Stargaze
On that foundation, it was the community, founders, and builders who created the culture and ecosystem around it. The projects mentioned above (and many others) helped form the atmosphere, activity, and value around Stargaze
They bring value to their holders, who constitute the actual Stargaze community
Individual projects have no legal or financial obligation to stay on Stargaze
At the same time, responsibility is being shifted to the participants to form opinions and defend NFT culture - but without sharing any of the profit from enabling this
This feels unfair towards them
Funding Plan
For us, as a Cosmos validator, the funding plan is unclear
“100k for this, 300k for that” - no, that will not work. A clear and detailed financial plan is needed, including allocations over time. We ask the Stargaze team to revise this section until everything is fully transparent: what funds will be used for, in what amount, and when
This is also not a full buyout, which many people misunderstood
If this is indeed funding, it is important not only to mention what the Stargaze team has done before - but what new work will be delivered using this budget - both technically and socially. Not past achievements, but new contributions
After these changes, everything will be transparent and understandable for both the ATOM and Stargaze communities
Proposal Fails
As a collection from Cosmos that trades in $ATOM, we cannot imagine Cosmos without NFTs, nor holders without a proper place to trade them
Migration within Cosmos does not currently look like salvation, and migration outside Cosmos would cause significant damage to the entire sector
If the deal does not go through, we call upon the Atom community, the NFT community, and Cosmos Labs to discuss the future of NFTs before Stargaze fully withdraws from the Cosmos ecosystem
Bad Kids, Sloths, Expedition and other collections will always remain “Cosmos NFTs,” deeply tied to the ecosystem’s history. Regardless of which marketplace they end up on, only people from the Cosmos community will truly care about this
Expedition is an active NFT community with its own opinion
We are a Cosmos collection and want to remain in Cosmos, continuing to develop the ecosystem
Our position on the proposal remains “Abstain” until a clear and detailed plan is provided. This plan must include the following points:
-
Funding and Expenses
Clear budget allocation: exact amounts and use of funds for each category
Timeline: when and how the allocated funds will be spent -
Benefits for the Community
What exactly will the Stargaze and $ATOM communities gain from the migration?
How does the team plan to support current $STARS holders? -
Existing and New Initiatives
Description of the new initiatives and projects that will be launched with the funding
Consideration of the views of developers and communities affected by the changes -
Support for Communities
Plans to involve different communities in the migration process
How NFT culture will be preserved and supported in the new environment
We urge the Stargaze team to take the above into account and revise the proposal so that all stakeholders can make an informed decision
Without satisfactory information, we will vote “Abstain”
4 Likes
This is exactly what I meant on my comment earlier @Ruwan.
1 Like
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
-
A proper business case for the Cosmos Hub, showing quantitative value creation—not just narrative.
-
Updated trading, volume, and user data compared to the original forecast to assess whether the assumptions are still valid.
-
Realistic migration cost estimates, based on engineering time rather than inflated numbers.
-
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
What I meant was that even with 1.5 million thrown at a new NFT marketplace, it doesn’t guarantee its success at all. It doesn’t mean users will come, come back, trade, and create any meaningful positive environment. Stargaze has a 3-4 year history with much brighter days. The difficulties Stargaze is facing aren’t unique to Stargaze; they’re a result we see everywhere else in the cosmos. All the chains are suffering terribly, including ATOM. Just a year ago, the sentiment wasn’t great, but the volume on Stargaze was five times higher. To be fair, it is the only other app I used with Osmosis for all this years.
Cosmos needs an NFT marketplace. If you think the cosmos will have better days, then you expect new chains, new projects, and new applications to launch, and they’ll surely want to use NFTs for their communities. I can guarantee you that creating a new platform (perhaps cheaper), empty, without a single collection, without existant creators, will have a very hard time launching and catching up without having to rely on a lot of incentives (which most of the time end up being just fake engagement).
Stargaze is in bad shape because the whole ecosystem is in bad shape and letting die one of the most used app will not help. With all that being said I agree the proposal lack information and budget’s details so I hope Stargaze team will propose a revised version before putting in on chain
2 Likes
Minting and issuance can happen on other chains, but the Hub should be the place where trading happens. You can batch the (mint) → (ibc to Hub) → trade → (ibc out of Hub) → send transactions into one tx through Skip:Go, for example.
In regards to this, I’d be much more supportive of the migrations if creators could choose where the issuance of our migration lands the collection. While I personally prefer opening all of IBC and letting holders list where they please. As long as the token can move about for other use cases I’d be a little less weary of things.
I’ve spent the last year or so building something that utilizes IBC enabled CEWTs from STARGAZE, but I need them to be able to move about the cabin to do so. I’d rather not see those efforts lost b/c the once IBC enabled collection is now just a community / fun token.
My fear mostly is the burn and re-issuance erasing the interoperability of the collection via IBC. The IBC interoperability is really what most of us are here for and believe in.
I see people publicly offering to do these migrations significantly cheaper, are these options being explored?
2 Likes