You can adjust the parameters on the model as you wish to see the effects it would have.
Anyway, we understand the frustration caused by the relative lack of performance, both in fiat term and also in dominance term. As you rightly noted, ATOM has been falling off from the top20 crypto ranking, but it’s important to note that the competitors who climbed up above the Hub are all younger projects with far lower shares of circulating supply and therefore much more centralized. Using the instantaneous market-cap is a misleading indicator if you compare cats and dogs with it.
Finally it is also important to note that the Cosmos Hub is not having any dedicated marketing team, nor is it spending dozens of millions of dollars of incentives to create fake activity on the AEZ. The lackluster demand for ICS has been largely explained by the inherent high cost to entry it requires for consumer chains to be profitable for the whole 180 Hub’s validators. This is the reason why Informal has been allocated to the task of producing a crucial update to this protocol, the Partial Set Security (PSS).
More details on the matter and all the public informations are available here on the forum:
discussion phase: CHIPs discussion phase: Partial Set Security (updated)
Specifications phase: CHIPs Specification phase: Partial Set Security
Signaling Proposal: [PROPOSAL ##] [DRAFT] Signaling Proposal - ICS 2.0: Partial Set Security
Also note that the public github repo for PSS is here if you want to keep track of the advancements:
To conclude, PSS is the real catalyst the Hub is needing at the moment. Inflation discussions definitely appears to be a distraction to us. The community should remain updated about the real matter at play. ATOM sells security, it doesn’t sell “tokens go up” narratives or anything like that!