Tricky from Cosmos Spaces here.
First off, I want to thank you Ruwan for pushing this discussion forward and trying to find a structure that works for both sides. I know you are holding a lot of pressure on the Stargaze side and still doing your best to make something workable for the Hub.
With that said, I think the structure you are proposing is going to get a clear NO vote from a large portion of stakeholders. Like have said, migrations by themselves are not worth very much, especially with the current state Stargaze is in. The way this is written puts most of the value on moving over existing products without any accountability or guarantees that the team will continue driving demand or improving the product after the move. The team still even keeps a lot of potential value by keeping the STARS token alive instead of just killing it like it should.
A structure closer to @Mag’s suggestion makes much more sense. It ties payments to the delivery of real value instead of putting all the risk on the Hub upfront. The team is already funded for a full year of maintenance work, which will naturally cover a lot of the migration costs. That makes smaller bonuses for actually completing integrations and shipping visible deliverables would be more aligned and more reasonable. The current setup front loads rewards for the team while giving the Hub very little assurance that anything beyond basic integrations will ever be delivered.
Just being fully transparent, I don’t think $1.5M makes sense for a migration of a declining product that has no guaranteed future development. The only reason I still think this is worth considering at all is because of the synergies of having an NFT marketplace that already serves a lot of the Cosmos Hub community. If the price is not inflated and if incentives are aligned properly, there is a potential win-win here. But we all have to be honest about what is going on and be realistic. NFT marketplaces are on a downtrend across the entire industry and resurrections are extremely rare. The Stargaze team would not be pursuing a deal like this if they had other viable options. In reality this is a lifeboat for both the team and the product. And I say that with all the respect in the world for the people involved. You have built a real product and you are good people, and that is one of the few reasons I would still support giving this a chance if the terms make sense.
But based on how the structure is written right now versus Mag’s alternative, we would vote NO, and I believe many others will as well. To have any chance of passing, Mag’s payout structure is the bare minimum. There also needs to be performance expectations, timeline clarity, and a clear clause that allows payments to be canceled if milestones are not met. Without that, this is simply not responsible governance for the Hub.
Putting on my director level business hat here, it feels like this is being rushed because the Stargaze team needs an urgent solution. There is not enough consideration of what actually makes sense for the Hub or what its stakeholders will support. It is natural that your perspective is biased because this is your baby and you understandably want it to survive, but the Hub has all the leverage in this situation whether anyone likes that or not. That reality has to be considered and can’t be ignored or downplayed.
Being fully honest, there is no meaningful revenue expected for the Hub here. This is not some big business expansion for the Hub. This is about saving one of the best known products in the ecosystem. Even then, Stargaze is in decline like the rest of the NFT marketplaces, and nothing in this proposal lays out how the team plans to actually resurrect the product, improve usage, or grow fees in any credible way. With no guarantees on performance or timelines, this could easily turn into another round of needing funding just to deliver the core value this whole proposal depends on.
Mag’s structure is reasonable, achievable, and actually passable. What is being suggested right now is not. I hope you rework the proposal, even if that simply means adopting Mag’s approach 1:1. Otherwise I think you are making the chances of this passing much lower than they need to be.
We want Stargaze to succeed, but the path you choose here will decide whether this proposal survives contact with governance.
