We run validators on both Cosmos Hub and Osmosis at Atlas Staking and we went into Proposal 1029 leaning NO. The “exit liquidity,” precedent, and risk concerns resonated with us and we were skeptical.
After digging into the revised terms and thinking harder about what failure actually looks like, we changed our minds and were in favor. Then after 2 days of reading responses back and forth from those for and against the prop, we changed our vote to NO.
We are all for the acquisition of Osmosis. What flopped our flip back to NO are the terms of the proposal.
The DEX will be abandoned by the team, foundation, and grants administration and left to the Hub to hold the bag, and the Hub has no plans for it all.
The payment needs to be scheduled out in traunches, and contingent on performance benchmarks, but the Osmosis team doesn’t appear to have any interest in sticking around.
Many people also make compelling cases for the continued decline of Osmosis’ value and the sale price being too high.
If the team comes back with a new proposal that addressed these concerns, we would most likely vote YES.
2 Likes
You are very new to the Cosmos forum, only saw you around in recent months but I feel your posts are a bit spammy. This post should be a message under the Osmosis proposal thread and not a whole separate thread just for one reply
1 Like
What the hub gets from this is debt. Technical and financial. Sunny and his posse ain’t interested in continuing. This is their exit. Nothing else.
1 Like
Says a validator who voted NO. Don’t call us new or spammy in a completely transparent attempt to discredit me and my attempts to sway NO votes for the betterment of the ecosystem. If you paid more attention you’d see we are everywhere in Cosmos, but thanks.
You’ll also see this as a comment in the Osmosis thread here on the forum. It’s posted as a topic of its own because validator opinions matter and time is limited to share them. That’s not spam.
Here’s a forum post from 2024 where we’re looking out for the Hub and delegators: Urgent Concern: Melea Validator's Misleading 0% Commission Claim
It’s just a fact, that your feedback or reasoning on your vote belongs in the thread of the proposal and not a new thread. Arguing that YOUR opinion deserves the attention of a new thread IS spammy.
Why are you so defensive? And what has any of this got to do with how cosmic validator votes?
You should grow a thicker skin.
Il y a bien pire comme “spamm” quand meme, vous chipotez juste parceque vous n’etes pas d’accord.
1 Like
The reply was not related to any votings, only to the fact that apart from sharing your reply in the Osmosis thread you spammed creating a whole new thread just with that reply.
I was in Cosmos ecosystem since 2017, I only saw you around recently.
It’s nothing more than exit liquidity. The Osmosis Dex isn’t gonna save the hub. If this proposal passes then the hub gets to bail out Sunny and save his bags so he can exit in style and move onto his next “venture.” I’d rather just watch it die, personally, and if the prop passes, then we get to see ATOM become a farm token, how long until we reach 3 pennies then?
1 Like
Then you’re not really looking anywhere but the forum. And even here we’ve been active for over a year and a half.
Well, the forum is where Cosmos hub governance is discussed
Exactly as I said, only active recently in the forum
@AtlasStaking
Blockquote
..
Just saw your edited OP.
This aged like milk.
@AtlasStaking didnt show prudence here. It showed indecision! A validators job isnt to swing back and forth in public and then patch together a justification after. If youre not sure then wait, do the work properly and vote at the end when you actually have conviction. Flipping positions mid way isnt sophistication. It just looks like weak standards and poor governance discipline! And lets be clear, the core argument from the start was financial. Does this deal produce material value accrual for atom holders, yes or no! Instead of answering that directly, you drifted into side narratives, team continuity, trust, future baggage and all that. That completely misses the point. Governance isnt about who likes who, who might leave or which team feels more reliable. Its about whether the economics justify the capital allocation. Full stop! On top of that osmo isnt operating in a protected bubble anymore. Aggregators route flow to the best path and deepest liquidity, period. That means osmo has to earn its place every day. There is no monopoly premium left. No free pass. No guaranteed relevance just because it used to dominate! So what are we actually looking at! A validator that changed its position, didnt really engage with the core valuation question and replaced it with narrative noise! That is not serious stewardship. Its governance immaturity!
3 Likes
Wait he could still change his mind one more time!
4 Likes
