Sunny Aggarwal on Proposal #52 $ATOM Liquidity Incentives

Summary

In the video, I delve into the implications of Proposal 52, which aimed to allocate community pool funds to support atom liquidity incentives on Osmosis. Despite anticipating its rejection, I wanted to use the proposal as a test to gauge the Cosmos Hub's priorities. The rejection highlighted a focus on short-term competition, particularly with the Gravity DEX, rather than a long-term vision for atoms as a high moneyness asset. I discuss the potential for rethinking this proposal in light of recent developments and the importance of collaboration between the Cosmos Hub and Osmosis. I also reflect on the commitment to ensuring that atoms serve as a foundational currency, emphasizing that the proposal was less about financial stakes and more about aligning community interests for mutual growth.

Key Takeaways

Proposal 52 was a test to gauge the Cosmos Hub's commitment to making ATOM a high moneyness asset.
The rejection of Proposal 52 highlighted a short-term focus within the Cosmos Hub community, prioritizing immediate competition over long-term strategy.
There is potential for collaboration between the Cosmos Hub and Osmosis, and efforts are underway to revisit and propose a revised version of Proposal 52.
The amount requested in Proposal 52 was relatively small, meant more as a symbolic gesture than a significant financial burden.
Community perception can sometimes misinterpret intentions, as Proposal 52 aimed to align interests rather than simply redistribute wealth to Osmosis token holders.

Detailed Analysis

In the video, I dive into the implications of Proposal 52, a contentious moment in the Cosmos ecosystem that aimed to allocate community pool funds to support Atom liquidity incentives on Osmosis. This proposal was not just about the financial figures involved, but rather a broader philosophical stance on what the Cosmos Hub should prioritize. I argue that the rejection of this proposal indicated a short-sighted focus on competition rather than collaboration, which has significant ramifications for the long-term vision of both the Cosmos Hub and Osmosis.

This situation reflects broader trends in the crypto space, where the interplay between different projects often leads to a competitive mindset rather than one of mutual benefit. The Cosmos ecosystem, with its emphasis on interoperability, should ideally embrace a cooperative approach. Unfortunately, the events surrounding Proposal 52 illustrate how internal politics can cloud strategic decisions. This is not unique to Cosmos; many blockchain communities grapple with similar challenges, where short-term gains overshadow the potential for collective growth.

The significance of my position lies in my call for a reframing of how we view collaboration within the ecosystem. By proposing a renewed version of Proposal 52, I aim to foster a sense of partnership between the Cosmos Hub and Osmosis. This could pave the way for a more unified approach, showcasing a commitment to making Atom a foundational asset in the blockchain landscape. The implications are vast: if successful, this could not only strengthen the ties between these two projects but also serve as a model for other ecosystems that struggle with similar dynamics.

However, we must critically assess the strengths and limitations of this approach. On one hand, the proposal highlights the potential for innovative collaborations that benefit the broader community. On the other hand, there remains a risk that these efforts could be seen as merely appeasing stakeholders rather than addressing the underlying issues. The challenge will be to ensure that any new proposal is robust enough to withstand scrutiny and truly reflects a long-term strategy rather than a quick fix.

This video is particularly useful for stakeholders within the Cosmos ecosystem, including developers, validators, and community members who are invested in the long-term vision of the network. By engaging with these concepts, they can better understand the nuances of governance and collaboration in a decentralized environment. Moreover, it serves as a reminder of the importance of aligning incentives to foster innovation rather than competition, a lesson that transcends the confines of any single project.

Transcript

Speakers: A, B

**A** (0:09): And, yeah, so I wanted to move on to a more specific thing, which is something that a lot of people have. Yeah. Said that, like, you know, oh, that's, that's. That's the reason why. Why Sunny is salty, which is proposal 52, right. On the Cosmos app to allocate community pool funds to atom liquidity incentives on osmosis. This was very early on when Osmosis launched incentives, so. And this got rejected. So can you share your thoughts about what this meant to you? What was the purpose of it and how, you know, why it's being kind of like, you know, still following you to. To. To this day? **B** (0:51): Yeah, sure. Yeah. It's funny because, like, a lot of people say, like, oh, I'm on this tirade because I'm upset that Prop 52 failed. I'll say, quite honestly, when we made Prop 52, we almost kind of expected it would fail, but we were hoping it wouldn't. Right. Because it was a test. So, look, the incentives amount here is not that much. Right. At the time, you know, whatever this total, the number of atoms being requested, it was like a few million dollars, which is like the osmosis community. Yeah. So, but this, like, atoms were like, you know, half of what they were today. And they were like. It was a. It was a relatively small amount. You know, osmosis gives away, I think, $3 million in incentives in, like, five days or something. Right. And so it's like, okay, it wasn't the amount. It was really meant to be this, like, signally. It was for the gesture of it, which was. I was pointing this. I was telling the world, okay, look, we. Like I said, you know, one of the main things the hub should be focused on is making atoms be this, like, high moneyness asset. Right. And I was basically. And that's kind of what we started with this entire post with. And we. My claim about the issue with the gravity decks is that the gravity decks would blind the hub to the bigger picture because it would be overly focused on gravity decks. And that. And that's basically exactly what played out, right? Where instead of seeing the bigger picture and saying, hey, here's a tiny investment in order to make the osmosis community more aligned with atoms, instead, we're going to reject this because it's competitive with the Cosmos Hub with the gravity decks. And yes, the timing was a little bit odd because it was the day before gravity decks launched, but that was sort of the point, Right. It was a test to see, like, hey, dear Cosmos Hub, do you care more about Gravity decks or do you care more about atoms becoming money? And I think the Cosmos Hub chose the wrong way in that proposal. And so it's like, yeah, no, I'm not upset that we lost that proposal. We knew we kind of predicted we would lose. We were just hoping that like the Cosmos Hub community would like see the bigger picture, but instead they prioritize short term thinking over long term strategy. **A** (3:26): Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Do you think there's a way to like, you know, now what this is three, four months, five months later to like now rethink this and maybe set up a different proposal and say, hey, you know, actually there is a way that the Cosmos Hub and Osmosis can become best friends. **B** (3:45): Yeah, I definitely think so. I think that like that's, I mean one, it really helps that I think, you know, I think some like great, you know, Cosmos Hub community members are like really taking the, you know, wcx. Still don't know who that is. But you know, he's an active posted on Twitter and so I know he actually sent me over a draft for a, A you know, V2 of Prop 52 to like try to run it again. And so I haven't gotten a chance to review it yet because you know, Thanksgiving and I was busy with family. But you know, I'll do that sometime this weekend to just like, you know. Yeah, I think that getting that proposal passed, it would, would be really good to at least show the like, you know, commitment from the Cosmos Hub that like, hey, we, we are interested in like making atoms be the base money and like, you know, and a lot, I remember a lot of people were one of the things people like oh, the Cosmos, you know, Sunny wants the Cosmos Hub to give away atoms to the Osmosis token holder. It's like guys, you realize we airdrop the entire osmosis like Genesis to atom holders. This is like peanuts relative to what? And it's really just meant to see like hey, can the Cosmos Hub be this long term partner and play tit for tat games? **A** (5:06): But I think it's also like, I mean you personally have been around so many years and I'm sure you're also still an atom holder and Sika is one of his top 10 validator on the Cosmos Hub. Right. So let's shift over. **B** (5:27): Sat.