Analysis

Why Was Cosmos Hub’s ATOM 2.0 Proposal Rejected?

Key Takeaways

  • A hotly contested vote noticed the Cosmos Hub neighborhood rejecting the proposal to implement the ATOM 2.0 whitepaper.
  • 37.99% of the tokens voted “NoWithVeto,” signaling sturdy pushback from the neighborhood.
  • The proposal induced controversy over its revamped tokenomics and want to implement a number of advanced new instruments abruptly.

The ATOM 2.0 proposal has rejected by the Cosmos Hub neighborhood in a hotly contested vote; the proposal failed regardless of gaining help from nearly all of voters.

ATOM 2.0 Fails to Go

After weeks of debate and a tense two-week voting interval, the Cosmos Hub neighborhood determined earlier this morning to reject Proposal #82, “ATOM 2.0: A brand new imaginative and prescient for Cosmos Hub.” 

Primarily based on a whitepaper penned by Cosmos co-founder Ethan Buchman and eleven others, the proposal was marketed as the subsequent step in Cosmos Hub’s evolution. Amongst different issues, the whitepaper recommended drastically altering ATOM’s tokenomics and constructing two new instruments, the Interchain Allocator and the Interchain Scheduler, which they argued would assist cement Cosmos Hub as probably the most necessary appchains within the broader Cosmos ecosystem.

The proposal, now thought-about by some in the neighborhood as probably the most controversial within the historical past of Cosmos, noticed an unusually excessive turnout of 73.41% of all ATOM tokens, with the vote remaining tight till the very finish. Finally, 47.51% of cash have been pledged in favor, 37.39% voted “NoWithVeto,” 13.27% abstained, and 1.82% merely voted no. 

Whereas most tokens have been certainly pledged in favor, Cosmos Hub’s governance mechanics make sure that a proposal can’t go if greater than 33.4% of voters go for “NoWithVeto”—a system that forestalls the Hub from falling prey to 51% assaults. “NoWithVeto” is, due to this fact, a powerful sign neighborhood members use to speak their perception {that a} proposal is actively dangerous to Cosmos Hub’s pursuits.

Buchman acknowledged the sturdy response in opposition to the proposal in a tweet storm: “To those who voted NoWithVeto, I respect your choice and listen to you loud and clear: the proposal in its present type is untenable. Even when it handed, amendments could be mandatory!”

Why Was It Rejected?

ATOM 2.0 was an bold and thrilling proposal, and that will have been a part of its drawback.

The 26-page whitepaper didn’t restrict itself to modifying one or two facets of the ATOM token, because the neighborhood initially anticipated, however got down to basically rework the way in which the Cosmos Hub functioned by introducing three new main instruments along with revamping tokenomics. The Interchain Scheduler, for instance, goals to be an on-chain MEV market, whereas the Interchain Allocator’s function could be to allow mutual stakeholding throughout totally different IBC chains; these are two very totally different, very advanced matters, and ATOM stakers could have ended up voting in opposition to the proposal due to one of many instruments regardless of liking the opposite one.

One other vivid concern within the ATOM 2.0 proposal needed to do with the revamped tokenomics. The whitepaper argued in favor of enormously rising the issuance of ATOM tokens for a short time in an effort to subsidize the Hub, after which reducing emissions over a interval of 36 months. Critics argued that the change in financial coverage was unwarranted and that particulars have been missing with regard to how the Hub would use the amassed ATOM. Others have been unconvinced that ATOM emissions might be efficiently changed by different sources of income by the point emissions waned. 

Most definitely, the varied parts of the ATOM 2.0 whitepaper will find yourself being resubmitted to the neighborhood for voting as their very own particular person initiatives, similar to how an in depth proposal for Interchain Safety—one other bold initiative to place Cosmos Hub as a central element of the Cosmos ecosystem—was handed in March. 

Disclaimer: On the time of writing, the creator of this piece owned ATOM, BTC, ETH, and a number of other different cryptocurrencies.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button
bitcoin
Bitcoin (BTC) $ 17,032.66
ethereum
Ethereum (ETH) $ 1,292.89
tether
Tether (USDT) $ 1.00
bnb
BNB (BNB) $ 291.13
usd-coin
USD Coin (USDC) $ 1.00
binance-usd
Binance USD (BUSD) $ 1.00
xrp
XRP (XRP) $ 0.394818
dogecoin
Dogecoin (DOGE) $ 0.100319
cardano
Cardano (ADA) $ 0.320432
matic-network
Polygon (MATIC) $ 0.933399