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

Hub Proposals Community Spend
102

Very much agree with all you said here.

103

I see this is on chain already and don’t know why…

Lots of feedback unanswered so far.

1 Like
104

The proposal is now on-chain for voting.

We incorporated community and Mag’s feedback into the proposal by making it less milestone-based and spreading payments out over a full year, along with introducing an activity-based incentive bonus. We also added more information about future growth and development.

2 Likes
105

Ruwan,

Thanks for the continued dialogue, but putting this on-chain while so many fundamental questions remain unanswered is premature and feels like trying to force it through before the community can properly vet it.

The “may pause future payments” clause is not a clawback, it’s just “we can stop paying you more.”

You still keep every USDC already disbursed, even if the migration completely flops or NFTs stay dead.

That’s not protection for the Hub, that’s us taking 100% of the downside risk while you get guaranteed, stable money.

A few of the big ones still unanswered:

• Why USDC only and not (or mostly) STARS? If you believe in the future value, take the risk with your own token.

• Real clawbacks: full refund of disbursed funds if milestones are missed or KPIs not hit (not just pausing future payments).

• Hard exclusivity or minimum volume commitments routed to the Hub, otherwise we’re paying $1.375 M for a chain that can (and will) keep leaking activity multi-chain.

• Why $1.375 M when multiple teams have publicly offered to do the exact same work for $100–$300 k?

Putting this on-chain before these are addressed just hardens the No votes. Pull it back, fix the terms (STARS + real clawbacks + cap ≤$500 k), and you’ll turn a lot of us around.

Thanks,

Abaddon

1 Like
106

In my view, this proposal was pushed on-chain far too quickly, without genuinely taking the Hub community’s feedback into account. The requested amount is extremely high, there is no clawback mechanism, and the overall funding plan doesn’t seem solid to me.

I usually keep a close eye on what happens in the ATOM ecosystem, and this whole approach gives me the impression of a deliberate value extraction attempt by the Stargaze team. I truly hope I’m wrong, because I am in favor of the acquisition, just not under these conditions.

Given the current wording and the rushed decision-making, I’m worried that a rejection of the proposal will trigger yet another drama (even though a rejection would make perfect sense to me). The team should have made a much stronger effort to align with the Hub, instead of trying to force the Hub community to align with Stargaze.

I personally voted NO :frowning:, and I think others will consider NWV, which is understandable. At the same time, I genuinely want to see Stargaze join the Hub, but if this proposal passes, it will likely happen in a climate of uncertainty.

4 Likes
107

I think i agree with comrade Guinch here. I support the migration in general but community concerns are not addressed and legitimate questions about the amount of money are kinda ignored.

1 Like
108

Hi Abaddon, thank you for continuing to engage in the discussion.

I understand why it might feel premature, but at some point, we needed to move from forum debate to an on-chain stage so the broader community could weigh in. Over the past six months, there have been four separate proposals on the Hub forum regarding a Stargaze migration, two from the team and two from the community, and we have adjusted the proposal each time based on the feedback we received.

On protection for funds: this is exactly why a multisig with milestone-based disbursements is included. The community has also been clear that a token deal involving STARS should not be bundled with the migration itself, and we adapted the proposal accordingly.

Regarding volume guarantees and interoperability: we cannot ethically commit to minimum trading volumes or flows. As stated in the proposal, we believe multichain activity strengthens, not weakens, the Hub by increasing visibility and IBC-driven flows. It aligns with the core Cosmos principles of sovereignty and interoperability.

As for the idea that “other teams can do this for less,” none of those teams have built Stargaze’s infrastructure or applications, nor do they have experience with our architecture, data systems, indexers, storage layers, or the operational history behind 3,800 collections. That comparison does not reflect the actual complexity or responsibility involved. There is a reason Stargaze is one of the most used apps in Cosmos.

Finally, Stargaze is a proven, long-standing team in Cosmos, with five years of consistent delivery and deep collaboration across the major networks in the ecosystem.

3 Likes
109

Strongly against this proposal. Expenses should be cut by ten times. Stargaze needs Cosmos hub more than Cosmos hub needs Stargaze

1 Like
111

About your “exclusivity to the Hub” point, I tend to disagree, looping on the same users is not the way to go IMO. If managed well, a multichain activity with volume = fees collected on other chains that could be reinvested straight into ATOM and eyes from outside the Cosmos on OG collections… I personally only see benefits of a successful multichain Stargaze. Of course it must be complemented with marketing. If the Hub hosted the only multichain NFT marketplace that leverages IBC (with Eureka, ETH and soon SOL are connected) to abstract crosschain transactions, redirect fees to the Hub and put the UX first with the easiest onboarding possible, it’s a win-win IMO.

112

Ruwan,

Thanks for responding, but I need to be direct because the framing here still misses the core issue: moving to on-chain before addressing material economic and governance risks is not “progress,” it’s bypassing due diligence.

The “milestone + multisig + pause future payments” is not a clawback. It’s just “we can stop paying you more.”

You still keep every USDC already disbursed, even if the migration flops or NFTs stay dead. That’s not protection for the Hub, that’s us taking 100% of the downside while you get guaranteed, stable money.

“The community doesn’t want STARS bundled” is the opposite of what most of us are saying. If you truly believe this migration will succeed and revive Stargaze, take the majority (or all) of the funding in STARS.

Refusing to do so sends the message that even you don’t have confidence in your own token’s future. It’s now seen as a “Culture/Fun token” what exactly does that mean?

“Ethically cannot commit to minimum volumes” Nobody is asking you to guarantee outcomes.
We’re asking for contractual exclusivity or minimum routing requirements so the Hub doesn’t pay $1.375M for a chain that keeps bleeding activity to other networks, and leaves the Hub holding the bag.

Bottom line: a lot of us want Stargaze on the Hub. More consumer apps, more IBC volume, more life on-chain, that’s a win.

The only thing standing in the way is the funding structure.

A migration with no binding on-chain commitments is just a subsidized relocation.

2 Likes
113

I don’t think 300K is even worth it for the SG team to migrate this. would an indipendent team do that in 300K? I doubt that.

114

What alternatives do they have? Who’s gonna pay them a dime to migrate?

115

New Proposal is alive in POSTHUMAN DAS

How POSTHUMAN needs to vote on Proposal #1017 in Cosmos? (Results will be taken before execution of this prop)

116

No alternatives for them. Plenty of NFT marketplaces on every chain.

117

POSTHUMAN will weighted vote on Proposal #1017 on 26th of November at 15:00 (4 hours before the end of voting) using results of voting on proposal in POSTHUMAN DAS

118

Just noting that the prop which has gone on chain has the following amendments compared to the original forum post:

  1. Revised payment structure based on feedback from @Mag

  2. Ask changed from 1.5 million based on milestone delivery to 1.375 million based on milestone delivery + up to 125,000 in potential bonus incentives

  3. More information on development and growth focuses for 2026/2027

On development and growth:

A common concern is that the Stargaze team may not be committed to further development. I’d say this is a blindspot from the team when first crafting the proposal - we are aware of our own commitment to the ecosystem after 4 years of shipping product and building the best community in Cosmos, but of course we can’t assume everyone has the same trust or relationship with us. Skepticism is fair. To that end, the prop payment structure was amended to be similar to Mag’s proposal.

This prop outlines a vision of consolidation, continued development and growing Cosmos. The Hub gets not just a mature product but also a committed team. We had fruitful conversations in the spring about not just migrating Stargaze, but also new products and features we would be able to deploy on the Hub in years following migration such as RWA + gaming verticals for NFTs. We are committed to bringing not just Stargaze as it stands but improving Stargaze and delivering new product over years.

On risk:

A common refrain is that the Hub is taking on all the risk here. Concern is fair especially for a community that has been burned on poor spends in the past.

There is risk for Stargaze as well - Q4 2024 and Q1 2025 volume on Stargaze was very good, but has since collapsed as public discussion of a migration began. Debate creates uncertainty around the product, even if migration was original proposed on the basis of opportunity and mutual benefit. I also anticipate several months of suppressed volume as a migration occurs, even if we see great volume a year later. We knowingly exposed ourselves to all of this and I’m not blaming anyone else for taking the opportunity to be hard negotiators.

There is a lot of risk involved in giving up your sovereignty and winding down your L1! There is also risk to deploying on the Cosmos Hub vs. migrating to other chains that have more robust existing userbases, dApp suites that synergize well with Stargaze, and offer various other perks. Deploying on the Hub is a bet that we can be part of expanding a real userbase on it from the ground up. We’d like to make that bet, and commitment/support mitigates our risk.

The opportunity:

I believe there is quite a good opportunity here for the Hub to make modest investment in a retail dAPP suite that complements a focus on enterprise/B2B elsewhere. This is much more than a simple integration and the team behind Stargaze isn’t going anywhere. We will be improving Stargaze, shipping new features/products, helping to grow the chain, and supporting other teams to come build on the Cosmos Hub as well.

1 Like
120

Brady,

Appreciate you laying out the three changes, but the “lowered total ask” point really needs clarification because the numbers don’t match that claim from the Hub’s perspective.

Right now, both the forum post and the on-chain prop clearly state:

• $1.375M in USDC via milestones / quarterly disbursements

• $125k in ATOM as an “activity incentive bonus”

That’s $1.5M total coming out of the community pool if everything is paid.

Renaming $125k as a “bonus” or “incentive” doesn’t change the economic reality for ATOM holders, it’s still part of the cost.

So when you say the on-chain prop has a “lowered total ask compared to the original forum post,” can you be explicit about what you’re comparing?

• If you mean relative to the $16M acquisition draft from earlier this year, sure, that’s obviously lower, but that’s a completely different proposal and time.

• If you mean relative to the current migration forum draft, the topline is still $1.5M, just split into $1.375M “funding” + $125k “bonus.” The community pool doesn’t care about that distinction; the total outflow is the same.

From a governance and messaging standpoint, calling this a “lowered total ask” is misleading to voters who don’t have time to dig into every line item.

If you want credit for reducing the ask, the math needs to change, not just the labels.

And that’s before we even get into the other open issues many of us keep raising:

• No clawbacks, only pausing future payments, with all disbursed USDC kept even if KPIs are missed.

• No STARS-denominated component, despite this being framed around long-term alignment and belief in Stargaze’s future.

• Other teams have publicly offered to handle the migration piece in the $100k–$300k range, which is an order of magnitude lower than what’s being requested here for what’s ostensibly “migration + development runway.”

I’m not against Stargaze as a product, and I’m not against consolidation in principle. But if we’re going to spend $1.5M from the Hub pool, the numbers and framing have to be honest, transparent, and defensible to ATOM holders, not optimized for optics.

Right now, they’re not.

– Abaddon

1 Like
121

Hey Abaddon,

I can see how my wording was confusing re:ask total - to me there is separation between the variable incentives bucket and the fixed bucket. Point taken that the community may not care about the distinction, though I do encourage everyone to read the onchain prop closely, including breakdown on milestones and tranche deliveries. I’ll edit my prior comment to clarify.

For the other issues you’ve raised, I believe they have been answered previously in this thread.

I’m simply commenting as a Stargaze team member to 1) voice my commitment and vouch for the team’s credibility and 2) note that we incorporated feedback and in particular most of Mag’s suggestions.

122

Brady,

Appreciate you clarifying the wording on the ask and editing the earlier comment.

From the Hub side though, the distinction you’re drawing between a “fixed” bucket and a “variable incentives” bucket doesn’t really change the economic reality: the community pool’s maximum exposure is still 1.5M (1.375M + 125k).

Whether that 125k is framed as “bonus,” “incentive,” or “variable,” it’s still part of the potential bill. So I’m glad you acknowledged that the wording was confusing, because that’s exactly how it landed for a lot of us.

On the “other issues have been answered previously” point, this is where I disagree. They’ve been addressed, but not resolved in a way that changes the risk/reward profile for ATOM holders. To be concrete:

• Clawbacks: We still only have the ability to stop future payments. There is no mechanism to return already-disbursed funds if milestones/KPIs aren’t met. That means the Hub still eats 100% of the downside on all prior tranches.

• Denomination / alignment: Payment remains entirely in USDC + ATOM bonus. There is no STARS-denominated component, which would be the clearest way to show you’re taking the same economic risk you’re asking the Hub to shoulder.

• Exclusivity / routing: There is still no hard commitment that Stargaze activity won’t just continue to leak multichain. “We like interoperability” is fine philosophically, but it doesn’t protect ATOM holders from paying for orderflow that can migrate elsewhere.

I don’t question your personal commitment or the team’s track record. But governance shouldn’t be based on trust in individuals; it has to be based on terms that clearly align incentives and protect the funding chain.

Right now, the structure of Prop 1017 still looks like:
• Hub takes the structural risk and long-term liability
• Stargaze gets stable USDC runway, optionality to keep things multichain, and no obligation to return funds if performance underwhelms

That’s why you’re seeing so many No / NoWithVeto sentiments, even from people who like Stargaze and like the idea of consolidation in principle.

If a revised version comes back with: real clawbacks, a STARS component, actual exclusivity/routing guarantees, and a materially lower total ask, I’d be very open to reconsidering. But as it stands, “we’ve answered this already” doesn’t fix the core design problems.

– Abaddon

123

The message from @mag highlights once again why strong leadership from Cosmos Labs is essential when negotiating financial agreements or broader business relationships. When framed as Magnus presented it, the proposal becomes significantly more compelling. In that perspective, the acquisition concerns the team rather than the migration itself, which creates a strategic alignment that can be meaningful. That said, we believe additional structure must be added to make the relationship both viable and durable.

From our standpoint at Govmos, any integration of a core team should be rooted in Cosmos SDK development. Within that frame, it would make sense for the Stargaze team, whose expertise in NFTs is recognized across the ecosystem, to take responsibility for the native x/nft module, including its maintenance and potential evolution. This would, however, expand the scope well beyond the initial migration proposal, which is precisely what is needed to make it workable.

Our recommendation

Cosmos Labs and the Stargaze team should begin private negotiations to define a clear Cosmos SDK based agreement. The Stargaze team would be tasked with maintaining and enhancing the x/nft module, and one avenue worth considering is the integration of this module directly into Gaia as part of the migration process, if the team deems it appropriate.

Under this framework, it also becomes evident that the agreement should be concluded directly with the Interchain Foundation (ICF) or a Cosmos Labs subsidiary. ICF and CL have the financial capacity to support such an initiative, and it would be fully justified as part of reinforcing core SDK development while acquiring the Stargaze application as a secondary component. In this model, the Hub would finance the migration and the performance alignment incentives, while ICF or CL would take on the recurring maintenance costs.

This structure ensures proper alignment across all parties and avoids setting a problematic precedent where project migrations are financed solely through the Hub’s Community Pool. We remain strongly opposed to using CP funds as an incentive for product migrations. However, we fully support integrations negotiated by Cosmos Labs that serve a broader and long term vision for the ecosystem, such as entrusting teams with the maintenance and development of core SDK modules.

Summary of proposed financial structure, building on Magnus’s revised outline

Cosmos Hub Community Pool

A dedicated migration fund of $185,000:

  • Initial setup and technical planning: $25,000
  • Launchpad and Studio migration: $25,000
  • Marketplace migration: $25,000
  • Name Service migration: $10,000
  • NFT collection migration: $100,000 (at $10,000 per collection)

Additionally, a performance based bonus pool of $500,000. Whatever Stargaze generates for the Hub in transaction fees over the year would be paid back to the team, up to this amount. Total CP contribution: $685,000.

Interchain Foundation / Cosmos Labs

A team acquisition budget of $900,000 for:

  • Development and maintenance of x/nft
  • Maintenance and continued evolution of the Stargaze application
12 Likes