When Prop 848 passed, bonding ratio was 65%. Today it is at 64.2%. Is that all you got, NO camp? 0.8%? 3 million ATOMs.
Come on folks. These are rookie numbers.
Really think Jae should get over Prop 848 and focus on Gnoland (GNOT) where he does have a new and unique offering to give to the world. Atom Oneâs offering is 30 validators securing fixed-issuance liquid staking token which is essentially stATOM if the LST threshold is 100% instead of 33%. stATOM might actually have a larger set of validators and thus be more decentralized. ATOM currently can determine how much of ATOM should be liquid staked which means there is a pretty large amount (67%) from the remaining hard staked ATOMs to act as buffer in attacks. So ATOM has the ability to configure the size of the buffer which is not something Atom One will be able to do. In all aspects, 0-10% inflation ATOM with faster rate change and the current LST offering is better than Atom One as proposed. Itâs just gonna be sour grapes, an inferior product and a waste of time. Gnoland is a better place to spend your attention.
Learn to lose with dignity. You win some, you lose some. How Ethan handled his loss last year should be an example for you how to handle a loss.
I really donât want the drama to leave the Cosmos Hub. I like it dramatic.
1 Like
me too, support so much
So proposal 848 just passed and we lost already Noble because they are concerned about validators revenue. Right after the inflation is cutted in a half, Noble says that is not going to adopt ICS now, beacuse they are concerned about validators.
https://forum.cosmos.network/t/noble-ics-v1-update/12312
Good job 848 supporters! Now the Cosmos Hub is not appealing anymore for consumer chains, looking forward for Noble to launch on ATOM1.
Please stay calm and donât tear the community apart.
Looks like Jae got Eloned. He is about to dump his tokens. About 6 million ATOM got unbonded from big accounts last night. Jae has like $100 million ATOM stash. Like Elon he is going to be forced into retirement with a $100 million retirement package. lmao
I wish he stayed. In any case, I wish him all the best in his next project. May he turn out like Elon.
I donât think thatâs the AIB wallet unbonding. This is theirs:
1 Like
Reality is probably more boring.
The one ending in d3d is Polychain winding down their node. Them being a VC probably means their market behavior is going to be fairly moderate / predictable.
The one ending in 8e7 I think itâs either informal or some ICF related entity, based some of their earlier transactions and transfers into vesting accounts. So they probably wonât do anything crazy. Maybe itâs just end of the year accounting activities or something.
The other two I am not sure of. Why would an address be so much longer than the others for the one ending in u28?
At any rate, Iâm guessing that resistance at 10 USD is going to be more resilient than before, but probably not some massive dump (barring the market just generally shitting the bed)
2 Likes
So it looks like it wasnât the inflation. 
4 Likes
We would be down more without the reduction of emission considering all things equal.
1 Like
Only normies would believe it had something to do with sell pressure. The security budget has been hilariously over-funded for years relative to other large L1âs and the risk-free âyieldâ of staking is another reason deFi in Cosmos has seen lackluster participation.
Security remains overfunded at 10% here. Max inflation needs to keep getting cut. Prob 7% should be the next max setting.
2 Likes
My recommendation:
Back to default.
2 Likes
Some people really badly want ATOM to be worthless, donât they?
because thats kinda obvious =)
it did hit a lot of projects though and keeps on doing that (
1 Like
Yeah I donât really think it was
1 Like
Amazingly itâs still not too late for 
this PMF. Which would still fân kick ass.
Capital concentrated for its community not just by its community
â
~ Addâl 2¢ ~
A decentralized fiat custodial service sure would make waves⌠
with near-free ramps for stakers, best in class fee service for non-stakers. âCompliance wallâ that away with its own app-chain (good PMF). Or contract it regionally.
Why should you still need a CEX for this? Seems like corporate protectionism.
What about directing hub capital at some highstreet legal services to explore RW service ideas like that? Add value & stake-gate the membership. Triple A for IBC
1 Like
Cardano and Polkadot are far more unified in their vision and they fail just like ATOM. Both Cardano and Polkadot are trading at 2019 prices as well. The reality is Solana has emerged as the clear cut winner in the Ethereum Killer wars. Solanaâs 7% inflation and adoption by devs is simply far more attractive for investors than ATOMâs 10% inflation and lack of adoption. ATOM is going to keep down over time if its community continues the gross mismanagement of its inflation. Itâs inflation is too high vs alternatives.
BTW, if the prop to cut max inflation didnât pass in November, ATOM probably would be trading at $1 now. The inflation cut rescued the price for a few more months. In my opinion, ATOM has to keep cutting inflation until it becomes more inline with industry standards (around 7%).
One more thing: if the Cosmos Hub community wants to go back to the Jaeâs 20% max inflation setting after being disappointed that the 10% max inflation didnât result in number go up, it is very likely that major exchanges like Coinbase and Binance will delist ATOM since this tokenâs price is projected to go towards zero given the tokenâs high inflation dynamics and retail investors are facing complete loss of value regardless of the utility of the token. At minimum, the token needs to be rated as highly risky and access to it gated to qualified investors. At 10% max inflation the situation is not as bad as it was at 20% but the dynamics are largely similar. Long term very businesses sustain a 10% growth rate forever and ATOM doesnât seem to be one of those business. In the Ethereum Killer sector, ATOM is hardly a top ranked player. While the IBC ecosystem is very strong and growing, ATOM doesnât really monetize that growth so nobody can really claim that ATOMâs prospects are the same as IBCâs ecosystem prospects. And if they do, they are lying and probably should be sued for misleading investors.
BTW, I am pretty sure most new investors donât know that IBC transactions arenât paid in ATOM. Many people just assume that IBC traffic accrues value to ATOM because that is how most other crypto ecosystems work. Few retail people dig that deep into specifics.
1 Like
I donât necessarily think that is accurate.
Do you have information to back up that claim concerning a delisting?
I think that some of the most dramatic declines in Cosmoâs market cap have occurred since bringing this measure into place.
So that youâre fully aware, I think that market cap matters much more than unit token price.
Staking was always designed to favor the stakers who are providing security to the network.
As a yes voter on this particular item, I also want to make you aware that I do understand and respect your point of view .
It is simply that over time, I have come to A different understanding of the situation. Iâm actually quite happy to discuss it with you .
I also just want to let you know that my interests are absolutely not served by the price of atom going to zero.
However if there are more atoms and market cap goes up, volume is flowing to stakers as intended.
Anytime that market cap goes down, then I feel that we have made a failure. And that is actually the reason for my about face on this particular matter .
So again, to be clear, I could easily be convinced that it is better to keep inflation exactly as it is. Itâs just that currently Iâm starting to think that we actually have evidence to the contrary.