Key Takeaways
- A hotly contested vote noticed the Cosmos Hub group rejecting the proposal to implement the ATOM 2.0 whitepaper.
- 37.99% of the tokens voted “NoWithVeto,” signaling robust pushback from the group.
- The proposal triggered controversy over its revamped tokenomics and need to implement a number of advanced new instruments .
Share this text
The ATOM 2.0 proposal has rejected by the Cosmos Hub group in a hotly contested vote; the proposal failed regardless of gaining assist from the vast majority of voters.
ATOM 2.0 Fails to Cross
After weeks of debate and a tense two-week voting interval, the Cosmos Hub group 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 essential appchains within the broader Cosmos ecosystem.
The proposal, now thought-about by some locally 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 had been pledged in favor, 37.39% voted “NoWithVeto,” 13.27% abstained, and 1.82% merely voted no.
Whereas most tokens had been certainly pledged in favor, Cosmos Hub’s governance mechanics make sure that a proposal can’t move 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 robust sign group members use to speak their perception {that a} proposal is actively dangerous to Cosmos Hub’s pursuits.
Buchman acknowledged the robust response in opposition to the proposal in a tweet storm: “To people who voted NoWithVeto, I respect your determination and listen to you loud and clear: the proposal in its present kind is untenable. Even when it handed, amendments can be essential!”
Why Was It Rejected?
ATOM 2.0 was an bold and thrilling proposal, and that will have been a part of its downside.
The 26-page whitepaper didn’t restrict itself to modifying one or two elements of the ATOM token, because the group initially anticipated, however got down to essentially remodel 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 can be to allow mutual stakeholding throughout completely different IBC chains; these are two very completely different, very advanced matters, and ATOM stakers might have ended up voting in opposition to the proposal due to one of many instruments regardless of liking the opposite one.
One other vivid challenge within the ATOM 2.0 proposal needed to do with the revamped tokenomics. The whitepaper argued in favor of drastically growing the issuance of ATOM tokens for a short time with a view to subsidize the Hub, after which lowering emissions over a interval of 36 months. Critics argued that the change in financial coverage was unwarranted and that particulars had been missing with regard to how the Hub would use the collected ATOM. Others had been unconvinced that ATOM emissions could possibly be efficiently changed by different sources of income by the point emissions waned.
Probably, the assorted parts of the ATOM 2.0 whitepaper will find yourself being resubmitted to the group for voting as their very own particular person initiatives, identical 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 writer of this piece owned ATOM, BTC, ETH, and several other different cryptocurrencies.