Stargaze to Cosmos Hub

Hub Proposals Proposal Ideas
1

Authors: Community Members (Independent)

Affiliation: None (not affiliated with Cosmos Hub or Stargaze teams)

Status: Draft for community feedback

Summary

This proposal invites collaboration between the Cosmos Hub and Stargaze to migrate the Stargaze application stack and NFT ecosystem (all NFT collections) to the Hub, while preserving the STARS token’s independence.This move would make the Hub the center of NFT activity across Cosmos and give the Hub a flagship and retail-friendly app.

The intention is to align the Cosmos Hub and Stargaze ecosystems strategically, bringing increased user activity, cultural relevance, and application diversity to the Hub, while preserving Stargaze’s independence and creative autonomy.The proposal requests $1.5M to migrate Stargaaze apps: Launchpad, Marketplace, Names, Studio, and all 5M NFTs to the hub.

Motivation

Stargaze is the cultural and creative heart of the Cosmos ecosystem. It is the leading NFT platform across IBC, supported by a vibrant community of creators, collectors, and developers. The team built some of the earliest CosmWasm applications, and the platform has become the default destination for NFT launches.

Many Cosmos users, across the Hub, Osmosis, Celestia and other zones, proudly use PFPs like Bad Kids, Mad Scientists, and Sloths traded on Stargaze. It’s more than an app; it’s part of the Cosmos identity.

Stargaze’s contributions include:

  • Serves as the social and cultural layer of Cosmos

  • Coordinating project launches for different IBC-connected blockchains

  • Core contributor to Interchain NFTs

  • First Cosmos-based Name Service

  • IBC token utility for minting and trading NFTs

  • One of the most used blockchains for DAOs

  • A track record of delivering during difficult market conditions

  • A proven capacity for community-driven initiatives, such as fundraising for social causes

Meanwhile, with the passage of permissionless CosmWasm, the Cosmos Hub is evolving beyond governance and staking toward becoming the central coordination layer for IBC applications. To succeed, the Hub needs applications, users, and utility.

The migration of Stargaze’s application layer, with its deep cultural relevance and broad social reach, signifies a major step toward that future.

Proposal Scope

The proposal includes the migration of the following Stargaze applications and assets:

  • Launchpad App

  • Marketplace App

  • Names App

  • Stargaze Studio

  • NFT Collections

This migration would bring Stargaze’s ecosystem under Hub security and connectivity, enabling tighter integration with ATOM and Hub-native assets, while maintaining the independence of the STARS token.

Funding Structure

Milstones:

Upon passing of the on-chain proposal - Initial disbursement to begin technical planning and coordination. - 400,000 USDC

Launchpad/Studio Migration - Migration of the Launchpad app and Stargaze Studio - 200,000 USDC

Marketplace Migration - Migration of the NFT marketplace to the Cosmos Hub - 200,000 USDC

Names Service Migration - Migration of the Names app to the Cosmos Hub - 200,000 USDC

NFT Collection Migration - Migration of all NFT Collections to the Cosmos Hub - 500,000 USDC

Total - 1,500,000 USDC

Disbursement and Governance

  • Funds will be managed by a joint multisig with representatives from both Cosmos Hub and Stargaze communities.

  • Each milestone will require usage of the app on the hub and sunset of the app on Stargaze

  • Oversight may optionally include Hub-appointed stewards or technical liaisons.

  • The funds will go to the Stargaze Foundation

Token Policy

  • The STARS token remains entirely independent. It will be up to the STARS community to decide whether to maintain the chain or migrate the token.

  • No STARS tokens will be purchased, merged, or redistributed.

  • Stargaze DAO retains control of tokenomics and protocol-level governance.

  • This proposal focuses exclusively on application and NFT migration, not ownership transfer.

Expected Benefits

  1. User Growth: Stargaze brings thousands of active IBC users directly into the Hub ecosystem.

  2. Cultural Integration: Strengthens the Hub’s cultural and community identity.

  3. Revenue & Activity: Increased on-chain transactions, NFT trading, and IBC flow.

  4. Ecosystem Synergy: Mutual visibility between ATOM and STARS communities, fostering interchain growth.

Next Steps

If this draft gains community support:

  1. Move this discussion to the Stargaze Governance Forum for reciprocal feedback.

  2. Add multisig members.

  3. Submit a formal on-chain proposal to Cosmos Hub governance for funding authorization.

Closing Statement

This proposal is not about acquisition for control; it’s about alignment for growth.By bringing Stargaze’s creative power closer to the Hub, Cosmos gains not only users and apps, but renewed cultural energy and visibility across Web3.

Both ecosystems have built resiliently through the hardest times. Together, they can thrive.

Call for Community Feedback

I’m sharing this as a community member, not as an official representative of either project.

I welcome constructive input from both Cosmos Hub and Stargaze communities, especially around:

  • Funding milestones

  • Governance structure for disbursements

  • Technical feasibility of the migration

Share your feedback!

NOTE: Quasar Validator is not affiliated with the Stargaze team, not a validator of the Stargaze network, and will not receive any profits from this deal. We are merely acting as representatives of the community, presenting this proposal after an extended period of discussion.

7 Likes
2

Why not just buy the token?

3

I hold quite a few NFTs on Stargaze and genuinely appreciate what the team built, but at this stage, I don’t see much point discussing this proposal further.
Cosmos Labs isn’t aligned with this kind of spend (they’ve been pretty clear about not funding migrations or acquisitions.) So the Stargaze team will probably need to reinvent or migrate independently if they want to create value now

3 Likes
4

Thank you for the detailed proposal.

Strictly speaking from a business POV:

1.5M$ are still a lot of money, less than what Shane asked before, but still a lot.
What’s speaking against Cosmos waiting another 3-6 months, wait until the token dumps some more and then acquire it for way less than 1.5M$?

Or why not just fork Stargaze, and built it out on the hub. Hire 5 good DEVs for 100k$ a year and then your prop would just cost 500k$?

I feel like paying more than 1M$ for the IP is very steep.

3 Likes
5

I agree with this idea in principle. The community pool could be used to re-invigorate the token prices and thus the community. It could directly benefit people who have been staking and or holding these projects for years. I don’t see how moving stargaze to the hub brings users to the hub. I guess if the chain is depricated and all the tx’s that were on Stargaze are now on the Hub it brings tx’s.. but anyone who uses Stargaze is probably already familiar with Cosmos hub, likely already owns atom (as this was most likely their avenue to onramp to stargaze) and is not a “new user” to Cosmos. If Stargaze could show that X amount of users came directly to Stargaze via Kado or something, maybe that’s something worth looking at.

6

I agree. It’s a ton of money.

2 Likes
7

Thanks for drafting this @Quasar. I’ve had conversations with several ATOM community members about the proposal, and there’s a lot of optimism around what it represents. I see it as a strong path forward for collaboration between Stargaze and the Hub, one that can set the foundation and example for other projects.

Beyond just this proposal, I believe it marks the beginning of an app ecosystem built around the Hub by the community, to create real value and activity for users.

I’m looking forward to hearing thoughts and feedback from the broader ATOM community here.

3 Likes
8

Hello everyone, our team is a validator for both Stargaze and Cosmos.

I think Cosmos Hub needs to solve its own problems first before burdening itself with external ones.

Only after these issues are resolved and the future direction is clear, then will we consider such proposals…

1 Like
9

On behalf of the Govmos team, we have carefully reflected on this topic and believe it would be prudent for the Hub to wait for further regulatory clarity before pursuing any form of merger or acquisition.

The reasoning is relatively straightforward. Based on the current draft of the Clarity Act in the United States, such actions could raise regulatory concerns regarding the Hub’s classification as a commodity. Engaging in acquisitions could be interpreted as a form of profit-seeking activity, potentially reinforcing arguments that align the Hub’s operations with those of a security, rather than a decentralized commodity network. This interpretation might further extend to the community pool, framing its use as part of an “investment contract,” which could have significant implications.

Of course, this remains speculative at this stage, as the bill has yet to pass the Senate and its contents may still evolve. Nonetheless, we believe it is essential to act with caution. Until there is greater clarity on how the regulatory framework will define and treat decentralized entities, it seems wiser to avoid any strategic financial moves — such as acquisitions — that could unintentionally expose the Hub to compliance risks in the future.

In short, we recommend a wait-and-see approach, ensuring the Hub’s long-term regulatory resilience takes precedence over short-term expansion initiatives.

Thank you for reading,
Govmos.
pro-delegators-sign

3 Likes
10

I posted a similar prop a few months ago.

I think Stargaze on the Hub is easily worth more than twice this amount, so $1.5M is an absolute steal, and it seems Stargaze leadership has agreed to it. We get a well-developed flagship app, a capable team, valuable assets, and transactions to the chain. Beyond that, it preserves the intangibles of culture and community.

With so many other apps leaving Cosmos, this is an opportunity to secure a meaningful part of its history.

I hope to see this proposal on-chain soon.

11

Cosmos Labs also opposed permissionless CW.

The community pool doesn’t belong to them, it belongs to all of us. They’ve been in leadership for nearly a year and still haven’t delivered anything that brings real utility to ATOM. We need apps on the Hub to show that meaningful projects can be built here.

2 Likes
12

From a business POV, everyone is leaving the ecosystem, and we don’t have any apps. I’m not sure you understand the difficulty of creating and maintaining apps.

$1.5M is peanuts for what we get and a community pool worth $40M with hundreds of millions in volume a day. Look at previous props to see what was spent in the past and consider the value we got out of it.

13

It’s pretty clear it’s not an acquisition. No deal to buy out the token.

14

I would generally agree with the proposal, but only on the condition that the total amount is capped at 1M maximum.

In my view, the proposed budget is too high, especially considering that the entire allocation would go directly to the team/foundation.

It’s also worth noting that some teams are already considering migrating their contracts to the Hub without any financial compensation, which shows there’s genuine technical and strategic interest in building on the Cosmos Hub regardless of direct funding.

Finally, to ensure proper execution of the deal and avoid any potential misunderstandings, I would suggest including clear delivery milestones and callback functions (or equivalent mechanisms) to guarantee transparency and compliance with the agreed terms.

That said, I do support the overall idea behind this proposal.

3 Likes
15

Stargaze seems all but dead. I would support the community pool funding a new project. NFT marketplaces are not novel, and it’s easy to deploy and maintain for about 1/10th of this price.

1 Like
16

We respectfully disagree with the assertion that this is not an acquisition. By all practical means, it is one — the Hub would be acquiring the application while financing the migration of Stargaze’s infrastructure. This clearly constitutes a transfer of value and operational responsibility, yet it comes with no guarantees or reciprocal commitments of any kind.

From our perspective, this represents a highly unfavorable deal for the Hub. As we’ve stated earlier, we would be genuinely pleased to see Stargaze migrating and deploying its application under the permissionless Wasm core — that’s the direction the ecosystem should naturally move toward.

However, we strongly oppose any attempt to draw from the Hub’s community pool to subsidize such a migration. If the project wishes to integrate with the Hub, it should do so independently, bearing the associated costs of deployment and transition.

4 Likes
17

I agree with this comment. To take it a step further:

Without assigning any malintent to anyone, it seems clear Stargaze is trending towards 0 and they are looking for a funding life raft. There’s no reason the Hub should finance their migration. They should migrate as it is the sensible thing to do. If they choose not to migrate, we should fund a team to build a Cosmos NFT marketplace.

1 Like
18

The question here I think is not to create something from scratch but move already existing things and collections, this has a price in my opinion (but a reasonable price). But the price of moving smart contracts, this should be done without talking about finance.

1 Like
19

Our recommendation for Stargaze is to consider migrating to the Hub’s Partial Set Security (PSS). On behalf of the PRO Delegators validator team, we would be pleased to operate this chain, provided that operating costs are covered. Our team was responsible for developing the financial model for PSS:

This research gives us a strong understanding of the system’s variables and how to configure them for long-term sustainability. Such a migration could enable Stargaze not only to survive but to thrive. For instance, the chain could inherit stronger security collateral with just ten Hub validators. On-chain activity might also generate sufficient revenue to cover infrastructure costs by slightly increasing base transaction fees to a few cents per transaction.

This approach would allow Stargaze to eliminate inflation, focusing the STARS token entirely on governance utility. If the Stargaze team is interested in exploring this further, we invite them to reach out at contact@pro-delegators.com
. We would be glad to arrange a meeting and share our insights on how PSS migration could offer a more sustainable alternative to an application acquisition plan.

4 Likes
20

And I vote no because it’s a ridiculous sum of money for a worthless chain that can be easily copy pasted despite Stargaze’s insistence to the contrary. The alternative, which must be considered in a discussion related to an acquisition, finances included!, is to fund an in-house one since Stargaze is obviously not going to migrate without a buy-out.