Thanks for commenting.
We understand your concern. The exclusivity of stATOM is only temporal since it will allow to launch ATOM Wars without much delay. We aim to allow other LSM TokenizeDelegations in the future.
Many thanks for all your thoughts and improvement propositions!! We will discuss them carefully.
We acknowledge the potential risk associated with a single entity gaining significant control over vATOMs. However, in our design, the entire system can be updated or completely removed through standard governance procedures. Thus, we consider the risk to be acceptable and manageable.
We understand your concern. We have chosen stATOMs for faster implementation and system testing, as integrating LSM shares would necessitate a more extended timeframe.
1 Like
One final question remains regarding the design: could you elucidate the reasons behind discarding the option to use AATs? As far as I know, AAT’s design was precisely tailored for this liquidity allocation purpose.
Additionally, on-chain governance has already endorsed AAT modules’ development via Prop #864. I’m curious why you didn’t opt to collaborate and bring evolution to this Hub infrastructure. In our original design, we intended to leverage AATs instead of deploying a Neutron smart contract. This point stands out as the primary difference between our two designs for PoL systems. I’m interested in hearing more about the considerations that led to this decision.
Thank you,
3 Likes
In general I believe this idea is worth exploring!
But I have a couple of thoughts on the implementation:
-
What mechanism can be put in place to make sure that regular community funds are not used for POL after implementing this?
Why this is important: If POL is spent via gov props from the general community pool in parallel to the POL from the POL basket, there may not be enough community funds left to fund core teams such as Informal or initiatives like AADAO. Ideally social consensus alone for not using the general funds for POL is not enough. After talking to Noam, it seems AAT would fix this. -
Project vetting
While in theory rational votes would not vote for any liquidity proposal that isn’t “worth it” for the Hub, there are two flaws in this logic:
1 : Users do not seem to understand the ins and outs of Impermanent loss & liquidity provision, as shown bei users getting rekt by IL in the quasar TIA vaults last month.
2 : users may vote based on bids rather than based on the risk/return for the Cosmos Hub
Possible solution: Have a committee vetting projects and potentially only allow Atom/Atom derivative LPs
-
Bids
Adding to the previous point regarding bids, I wonder if the bids strategy is the right way to go. Another risk that Bids bring:
Projects are incentivized to spend an amount up to the cost of liquidity to bribe voters. If two projects go H2H for e.g. the highest tranche, and both spend close to the cost of liquidity, the project that does not get the highest tranche will actually overspend on liquidity it receives. -
Short Cycles don’t align with slow Hub governance
Given that Cosmos Hub governance decisions can take up to 3-4 weeks (incl forum post), 1 month cycles seem a very short time to react to anything where governance has to intervene. I believe doing 2 month cycles makes more sense in that regard -
Project not returning its liquidity
Can this not be mitigated by deploying funds via multisig (or ideally timewave or AAT)? Seems unnecessary risk to be dependent on the project team to return its liquidity
2 Likes
A lot of questions, but first and foremost. Why only stAtom? I see it is mentioned that it will not be the case in the next upgrades which might come in years to come. but by then we are making other LSPs obsolete. This should not be happening.
1 Like
I just published a new topic exploring potential risks and limitations in the original iteration propose. It also suggests a few adjustments that could improve the value prop of Atom Wars here.
I’d love to hear the feedbacks of the community on it!
4 Likes
I didn’t say it compromised security for the hub… I said “This seems like you’re prioritising speed to market over the security of users’s funds.”. Meaning it compromises security for the end users and the people competing in atom wars, as they are now forced to take exposure to a single LS provider which they can’t choose. That’s not cool. Either you allow users to choose which LS provider they are OK having exposure to, or you don’t use LS providers (and use LSM), or you allow both. Forcing users to take exposure to Stride is not a fair ask.
Not really if you force said competitors to first of all take exposure in their competitors LSTs…
Explain to me the added complexity of allowing other LST providers’s tokens? Seems like a simple whitelisting process to me.
Sure, sounds as complex as launching straight up with LSM shares. Easy to solve by allowing any LS tokens imo.
Also still awaiting your answer on this:
Thanks again
1 Like
Thanks for your sharing your ideas!
A design in which ATOM holders’ decision is entirely based on the risk/return for the Cosmos Hub is what we have now. ATOM Wars aim to encourage ATOM holders to participate in funding decisions in exchange for a tribute for supporting a particular project. Projects must compete for such support. However, holders should also evaluate projects based on quality and their impact on the Hub. There’s a long-term incentive tied to this: if supporters choose low-quality projects and funds are lost, future funding for ATOM Wars may decrease, impacting supporters’ future profits. Since the community pool bears the primary cost of lost funds, not individual supporters, @JohnMontagu has suggested additional measures to better align these incentives.
Bid payments are conditional on winning. Hence, the loser project in your example will not pay anything.
This is a flexible parameter that can be easily adjusted. We’re eager to hear what the community thinks about it. Thanks for your feedback.
Yes, this is a risk that we want to mitigate. The options you mentioned could be helpful in addressing it.
Hey @Thyborg,
I know you guys are gathering the feedback and drafting a final version of this prop. I request another round of debate on the final draft rather than posting it directly on-chain.
3 Likes
Yes, that’s the plan
1 Like
Landslide would pay for ATOM liquidity and security.
Landslide is the IBC connection to Avalanche, and our protocol is looking to more closely align itself with the Hub.
5 Likes
This is very interesting to learn from the demand side of the equation. We would be pleased to hear more details and/or potential suggestions you think could help the final product to better suit your needs (if any).
Landslide seems like an interesting project with great potential for Hub alignment indeed. On a more personal note, we still have to conduct our due diligence and therefore we would like to ask if you would be opened to share 30m of your time with us to discuss your project’s vision and strategy. Feel free to send us a message at contact@pro-delegators.com.
Thank you for your time!
4 Likes
The Cosmos Hub is an ever-evolving ecosystem where the community works together to strengthen governance of ATOM.
Which will help improve long-term profitability and promote the growth.
It show the community’s commitment to the the Cosmos Hub by.
Establishing a clear and transparent process for the creation and management of dedicated governances for each ICS agreement.
Ensuring that the governance structure is designed to be resilient and adaptable to changing market conditions and regulatory requirements.
Leveraging the expertise and framework of the AADAO (Atom Accelerator DAO) to create a sub-DAO specifically designed to manage the governance of ICS agreements.
Ensuring that the governance structure is designed to be compliant with regulatory requirements, such as those related to transparency, accountability, and conflict of interest.
Exploring other approaches and frameworks, such as creating dedicated governances for each ICS agreement, with a focus on regular review processes and adaptation.
This governance structure could help to ensure the resilience and sustainability of shared security models like ICS, while also providing a level of institutional expertise and credibility that would be attractive to Big Three index fund managers and regulatory bodies like the SEC. Additionally, this structure could be beneficial for validators, atom holders, and stakers in the Cosmos ecosystem, as it would provide a clear and transparent framework for managing the governance of ICS agreements.
To make this short, I dislike this idea. New tickers like “vAtom” makes it complicated for everyone, Cosmos needs to remain simple.
Also “Atom wars” sounds destructive.
Do we want to start to make “atomic bomb” references? You may find it fun now. A name like that will modify the image of the project however. It will also hinder recovery after peak bull (participants, and developers, will feel more bad after the big blow, it’s a psychological thing).
3 Likes
I don’t believe that the concept of vATOM is overly complex compared to other developments in the blockchain space. However, it will undoubtedly require some educational content to ensure understanding and adoption among users.
Regarding the name of this new concept, ‘ATOM Wars’ is undeniably reminiscent of Curve Wars. If the term “war” raises concerns or is deemed inappropriate, we can certainly explore alternative options. One suggestion is ‘ATOM Forge’, which shifts the focus away from competitive connotations and instead emphasizes the user’s central role in governance processes. By invoking the imagery of a forge, this name implies the act of shaping and molding governance decisions and outcomes, aligning well with the platform’s purpose of empowering users to actively participate in governance.
2 Likes
We can call it ATOM Love
1 Like
This topic’s idea/implementation is the only thing core / BD team should be busy with if someone really wants to bring users/projects into cosmos.
ATOM should be the biggest source of liquidity within Cosmos. Full stop. Not uscd or usdt. Hear me out - stables are must have but native token will always be valued more hence it should be the backbone just like ETH.
Please whoever is actually implementing this idea/proposal - be bold and do whatever it takes to launch this initiative
3 Likes
It seems to me that this vatom component is simply adding complexity, via creating a gating token, with no real benefits…
That’s pretty much the point of any smart DeFi scheme. Let me help you out:
The only thign DeFi did for the world is this: it evened out the chances between those 12 dudes with ties in the oval office and a housewife/man at playing economical schemes
That’s not a bad thing on its own. It’s amazing. It created what others called equality or what in anarchism is called the free market (anarchism stands here with purpose).
Issue is, it didn’t solve (and it will not) human behavior (i.e. greediness). Hence, and back to the topic: that is the point of vatom or any other similar idea. Create a form of complexity that will, in turn, create rewarded retention for those seeking it, in other words - complexity. It’s just not necessarily a bad thing in this case (not it has to be good, that’s a subjective opinion for each person)
1 Like
This forum post is linked in a recent tweet from Cosmos Hub (https://twitter.com/cosmoshub/status/1782348888948744571) also linking to this blogpost from AADAO (Atom Accelerator DAO). So, if there is already a grants program, the AADAO, which gives funding also to early stage projects building in the Cosmos ecosystem, community initiatives, etc., how is the ‘Venture Grants’ not just a duplicate of AADAO? How is this Venture Grants program different from AADAO and not a duplicate?
1 Like