I strongly agree with Govmos, as well as how it was framed.
This is much closer to what many of us have been asking for: treat this as a team acquisition + long-term SDK mandate handled by ICF / Cosmos Labs, not a 1.5M “all-in” migration bill paid almost entirely by the Hub’s community pool.
The idea that Stargaze would own and maintain x/nft as part of core Cosmos SDK work is exactly the kind of strategic alignment that actually justifies serious money.
Structurally, the Govmos outline fixes several of the biggest issues:
• The Hub CP pays a clearly scoped migration budget + performance-based upside, rather than indefinite USDC runway.
• ICF / Cosmos Labs covers recurring team costs, where that kind of spending belongs.
• It avoids setting the precedent that “move your app to Gaia = drain the Hub CP,” while still leaving room to reward real performance.
I’d still like to see stronger downside protections (true clawback / refund mechanics) and more explicit economic alignment.
But directionally, this is the first structure that actually addresses the “who takes the risk vs who gets the runway” problem instead of hand-waving it.
If a revised version of this deal looks like “Hub funds migration + aligned incentives, ICF/CL handles team acquisition + SDK mandate,” I’d be a lot closer to Yes than I am with 1017 as currently written.
This detail of static token supply for $STARS should have greater mention in the proposal. Much of that activity is offchain, so attestations or other citations are economically relevant.
Given that the governance chose to go with the permissionless CosmWasm earlier and the fact that the proposal now includes team acquisition I don’t see it as anything but positive. This is literally one of the most knowledgeable CosmWasm teams out there. They’ve shown their ability to deliver and were never entangled in major fund misspending drama.
The product contain multiple existing solutions for future token value accrual. There’s contract infrastructure for sharing minting proceeds with the community pool. Additionally, there is a way to price assets in alternative denominations and the buy-back mechanism that could create positive pressure for $ATOM
Permissionless Stargaze on Hub in itself is already a completely different product on its own. There will be better consolidation, marketing and resources backing the product as well. Comparing to the past token price action is irrelevant.
NFTs and tokens are one of the most underdeveloped areas with huge room for innovation. You get users by being the first or being the best. Both requires doing experimentation, iteration and improvement on existing solutions. This is one of the narratives that we can try ourselves in. Personally I’ve recently done a research and came up with a plan on how we can be the best at this niche.
As a web3 developer, you need something to build on top of. Right now there are no DeFi protocols, DEXes, vaults on CosmosHub. There’s pretty much only Hydro, DaoDao and the infamous Governance, which is not a lot to work with. Launchpad, Marketplace and NFT ecosystems can be a great start
Classic ATOM. I have bought into ATOM quite a while ago, been holding probably much much longer than many people here, staking with different validators. I never liked to engage with broader community despite my large stake. Recently, during casual discussion one of the validators encouraged me to speak up and voice my opinion specifically for this proposal because I mentioned to him I think it should pass and I believe it IS GOOD for Cosmos at large. Only to be met with veiled hostility, my comments hidden. Some people can’t help themselves. I should have known better to keep quiet like for the past years.
Abaddon, I’m curious how you envision a STARS-denominated component?
As far as I’m aware, the Hub CP doesn’t at this moment hold any STARS.
Are you suggesting the Hub Community Pool acquire STARS tokens on the market and pay them out to the Stargaze team?
Stargaze had a productive meeting with Cosmos Labs today to outline future growth plans for both Stargaze and the Cosmos Hub.
RWA expansion on the Cosmos Hub:
Stargaze has always believed NFTs are more than JPEGs. Much of the industry’s next wave of growth is expected to come from increasing RWA adoption. Real estate NFTs have grown 32 percent year over year, and phygital collectibles like trading cards are also gaining momentum. With Cosmos Labs focused on institutional adoption, Stargaze is well-positioned to build client-specific RWA products. After collaborating with Noble to create an RWA minter, Stargaze will expand on that foundation with Cosmos Labs’ support to develop additional RWA offerings on the Cosmos Hub. The most challenging aspects of RWA development are sourcing business relationships and maintaining legal compliance. With Cosmos Labs assisting in both partnership sourcing and compliance, Stargaze will be able to deliver functional products within two quarters of a signed deal.
Growth outside the crypto bubble:
Stargaze will expand its social media strategy beyond X, Discord, and Web3-focused channels to place more emphasis on platforms with broader reach, including TikTok, Instagram, Threads, YouTube (shorts), and Reddit. The goal is to increase visibility, reach mainstream audiences, and create new entry points into the Stargaze and Cosmos ecosystem. Stargaze will produce content for non-Web3 users and support creators with platform guidance and amplification of strong content.
Clarity on funding:
Stargaze will not benefit from any increase in the price of ATOM. The proposal is denominated in USDC, and the maximum Stargaze can receive is 1.375 million USDC plus the activity bonus in ATOM. If the value of ATOM rises, any excess beyond the approved USDC amount will be returned to the community pool, together with any unused portion of the spread percentage.
Stargaze looks forward to collaborating with Cosmos Labs to support future growth on the Hub.
Essentially, this proposal is about recruiting the Stargaze team. The asking price was reduced tenfold from the initial amount and fixed in USD, which I consider important. Therefore, I unequivocally support this proposal.
This expands on points already included in the proposal, and the main forum post has been updated accordingly. The current on-chain proposal also links to the full discussion/post.
Question on funding denomination & timeline for ATOM price changes
The proposal is denominated in USDC, however Stargaze would be receiving ATOM. It is written that if the value of ATOM rises, any excess beyond the approved USDC amount will be returned.
Is there a defined timeframe or settlement point for this pricing calculation?
For example:
Is the ATOM → USDC value assessed at the moment of each payout?
Or is there a set evaluation date (e.g. after migration completion)?
What happens if ATOM appreciates significantly 1–3 years after distribution – is that still considered “excess” to be returned, or is the clause only intended for short-term volatility?
Clarity on the exact timeline and accounting method for this mechanism would be helpful for assessing risk and fairness to the Cosmos Hub community pool.
After further reflection, we have decided to cast a YES vote on this proposal. While we continue to believe that a more balanced agreement could have been achieved, rejecting the proposal at this stage may create greater harm than moving forward. The ecosystem is already under significant pressure, and blocking a constructive initiative risks undermining both community trust and the long term trajectory of the project.
Our support does not change our broader recommendations. We still encourage the team to consider, once the one-year commitment validated by this proposal reaches its term, entering discussions with Cosmos Labs regarding a deeper integration focused on maintaining and evolving the x/nft module. Such an approach would place the work of the Stargaze team within a clear, durable and strategically aligned framework that benefits the entire ecosystem.
In short, we support the proposal today to avoid destabilizing the situation, and we encourage all parties to explore a path that ensures long term financial sustainability and technical alignment after this initial one year period concludes.
After more digging and long talks with other validators I am now convinced this vote should NOT pass. I have also followed discussions on X/twitter including justification from Citadel One (I don’t stake with them). This proposal looks good at face value but once you start digging, it seems the team wants to cash in and bounce. It was pointed out to me that the dev jumped ship already which puts into question future support: https://fxtwitter.com/shan3v/status/1963700915371970928
I voted because I believe Stargaze has huge potential.
There have been many projects that didn’t deliver real value, but with the right funding and proper applications, Stargaze can go from strength to strength.
I had the pleasure of meeting Joe from Bad Kids and seeing all the creative NFTs but simply moving NFTs around isn’t the answer. What I want to see is Stargaze creating real utility for NFTs in the future from real-world assets to social media integration.
I’d also love to see other projects in the Cosmos ecosystem collaborate with talented illustrators like @frutopia, whose artwork and design skills are incredible. Stargaze can become a true creative hub the hub for innovation and artistry. So its been as shit show for Alts was speaking to other guys in other systems same story … we need to build on what we have and get the cross chain of art and creative thinking on…. A sold Yes …. lets go
Thanks for playing. Tbh I didn’t talk to no validator nor did I ever hold any atom, I was betting on this passing on polymarket
If I am honest, as impartial figure after learning about your guys’ stuff here, you are paying $1.5M for something that clears what, 50k in monthly VOLUME? Lmao, only in crypto. But hey, who am I to judge, have fund and like I said, thanks for playing.
