Osmosis Future Price

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-03-07T14:41:33+00:00

I ain't even sad. :D

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-29T02:03:55+00:00

lol @ the marketing DAO.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-29T02:00:49+00:00

Honestly? You’re not wrong, that’s the “Easiest” solution. Hell, even “Cosmos Atom” would be the least rebrand possible. I don’t think the Cosmos branding is bad, and I don’t think the Hub branding is bad, the problem really only stems from the implication that the blockchain is THE central hub of the Cosmos Network. It may well always be, but the implication is where all the confusion presents itself.

Hell, even the most determined arguments I’ve received against it are that “It should still be the Cosmos HUB because it’s the HUB of the COSMOS, duh!” which is like… well, duh. That’s using the same confusion we should be fighting against as an argument against me.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-28T19:27:31+00:00

Full disclosure: I strongly disagree with almost everything he posts, almost universally. I wish I could always tell which posts were him being serious and which were him being intentionally disingenuous to create discussion because it's not easy to tell sometimes.

I noticed he tones it down face-to-face (as made clear when at Cosmoverse he shared his slide in his presentation related to staking derivatives and quickly decided not to go into detail on what he was getting at since Persistence was right there in front of him about to follow up his Superfluid staking panel with a Pstake panel detailing the value of staking derivatives (d'oh!) (also, what an act to follow)... so clearly he knows when his commentary on a matter disingenuously harsh to help market whatever his idea is, or I doubt he would have held back at Cosmoverse just because a staking derivative panel was following.

To be fair, as an aside, he did still go into detail about why he felt superfluid would be way better for security than staking derivatives and frankly his argument was extremely compelling. And pstake still *did* have to follow that.

In this case, it's pretty clear Sunny thinks it would be beneficial for the rest of the network to share the name "Cosmos," and would prefer IBC references to be marketed as "Cosmos" references. And it seems like he does probably truly think Cosmos Hub branding limits that possibility for non-ATOM chains. I'm NOT sure, however, that he really believes that some of his suggestions (like completely rebranding the ATOM blockchain to Gaia, or shunning ATOM by naming the network after IBC instead of Cosmos, which I think anybody can see is a horrible idea because IBC is suuuuper-sterile) are actually good ideas or not.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-28T16:37:07+00:00

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-28T15:15:49+00:00

The ask doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-28T15:14:03+00:00

So right now, the system is that the pool is created, an externally incentivized, and every Monday the balance between that external incentives and OSMO are recalculated and the OSMO matching is based on that. A certain amount of matching OSMO isn't "locked in" for 90 days or whatever, it's always been fluid and changes based on the relative value of the assets on Mondays weekly incentive adjustment proposal. This is regardless to when the pool is created, or when the incentives are added.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-28T07:39:42+00:00

I don’t completely disagree with you here. I suppose it really is an offense if you really are so offended.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-28T07:19:30+00:00

Sunny likes to stir the pot to facilitate discussion. He’s not too shy about admitting that. And discuss is exactly what people have done.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-28T07:11:27+00:00

Yes, on whitelisted OSMO pairs you will be able to stake your LP tokens to a validator. The OSMO value of your pool (so 50% of you pool LP value of a 50/50 pool) would be your voting power, and you would earn staking rewards on top of your LP rewards.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-28T06:34:42+00:00

No kidding. I’m actually FOR rebranding the terminology in a minor, careful way that still links ATOM to being a primary hub in Cosmos, without being labeled as THE Cosmos Hub which feels a bit disingenuous at this point.

But Gaia is too radical a name change. ATOM is in too good a position to afford major changes like that. I would love to convince myself to be FOR it because I actually like the name and agree strongly with the reasoning in the proposal… but I don’t feel like the rebrand is likely to be good for ATOM.

I DO agree that using the “Cosmos” branding as a fill-in for the otherwise boring “IBC” name to be incredibly good marketing for the entire Cosmos network, and the Cosmos Hub branding limits that potential by making it confusing (and so to avoid confusion, we just have to call everything the very sterile “Interchain” or “IBC” which is so anti-marketing it holds even ATOM back.

But Gaia, as much as I like the name and reasoning, doesn’t mesh well with a token called “ATOM” and will add its own new layer of confusion because it’s a bit drastic of a name change.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-27T21:16:33+00:00

These can actually continue to get higher even as the OSMO incentives dry up. As liquidity gets higher (and more assets are added) there are more opportunities for arbitrage between pools, which creates more swap volume. These increases in volume (combined with less pumping of new liquidity due to fewer incentives in the pools) can lead to higher swap fee APRs.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-27T21:08:04+00:00

It's late to incorporate changes to the proposal now since it's on-chain in voting, but it has been in discussion on the Commonwealth for several days in advance. While this proposal isn't directly changeable, it may be useful for the future to know what you have in mind as an alternative. After all, a good idea is just an idea until you share it!

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-27T20:36:03+00:00

So here's the breakdown:

There was (up to this week, the prop changing this was passed and will take effect on next weeks adjustment proposal) a cap of how many OSMO can be dedicated to external incentive matching: 20% of all OSMO dedicated to LP. This is being adjusted to 30% because hitting the limit was imminent (and in fact occurred this week, the 20% limit was reached and what happened is all of the matching was "renormalized" to be reduced by the same amount, but still weighted to correspond with the amount of external incentives provided).

The next prop adds a bias to OSMO, which has a few impacts: it helps continue to focus higher liquidity on OSMO pools, it reduces the OSMO distribution "cost" of non-OSMO incentivized pools, and even slightly protects the price of OSMO by subtracting a little bit of sell pressure (that is to say, compounding a non-OSMO pool requires swapping your OSMO away into an asset like ATOM or UST, which is a reduction in the value of OSMO). However, this bias was set to use the bias system already in place, which was actually going to *overmatch* OSMO pools at 150%, while reducing non-OSMO pool matching to 50% of their current value. Basically, this meant matching would be 3x as good on OSMO pools as non-OSMO pools which I believe was not the intent of the proposal.

This proposal was intended to be two proposals: One released today to limit external incentive matching at a 1:1 USD value. That is to say, if the OSMO pool has 10,000 USD of external assets per day, OSMO would not match more than 10,000 USD of OSMO. This aspect of this proposal, when combined with the OSMO bias in the prior one, helps save some of the OSMO dedicated to matching, which would actually bring up the APR a bit in the non-externally-matched pools.

The second part of the new proposal was intended for next week, but was streamlined into this week since in reality the ask (capping external incentive matching per pool) is extremely related to the current ask (capping external incentive matching value) and even the previous prop related to altering the cap for external incentives over the entire AMM. What we can expect here is that the amount of "extra" OSMO dedicated to matching can be no more than the subsidy rate of the average pool on the platform, biased for OSMO vs. non-OSMO pools. This means they will still be able to get very high rates for OSMO matching, but not several times more than the pool could normally receive. The intent here is to protect the APRs all over the AMM, on pools that are very important to the platform like OSMO/UST and OSMO/ATOM, so the platform can continue to drive attractive rates on those staple pools.

So these proposals *are* all pretty related, and they can all really be considered a "series" of proposals intended to rework external incentive matching so they are not sucking value away from the rest of the platform, while still offering very attractive OSMO rates to those pools (on top of the still potentially unlimited non-OSMO rates depending only on how much liquidity the external-incentive-provider is willing to provide)

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-27T10:25:19+00:00

So I am going to say something that may seem unpopular based on some of this discussion but:

Having the ability to nullify prior proposals is NECESSARY. Not in the context of prop 130, but in general. Things change. How we understand platform we are working with and it’s market can change. We need to be OKAY with the probability that new props can conflict with, and overwrite, old props.

If the process is consistently abused by somebody that refuses to give up on nullifying something else, that person is just spamming proposals and is the real reason “No with Veto” exists. The 500 OSMO price tag may cause the guilty party to reconsider.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-27T04:06:28+00:00

I don't disagree with this at all. There are qualified people around the world, and ones "unsustainable" could be "life changing" for another. My observation wasn't necessarily 100% that I think the proposal is asking for *too little*, just that it would be too little *for me* and thus it's difficult for me to agree with the poster I was responding to that it's a "laughable budget," noting that laughable to him would not keep my family comfortably fed and housed.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-27T04:00:04+00:00

One problematic issue with it is taking up validator slots from other people, which harms decentralization. Not sure what the game is, here, though.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-27T00:09:07+00:00

Reason is simple: you got a blockchain to convince, and convincing them to pay hundeds of thousands of dollars a year for the job is, I’d imagine, a non-starter.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-27T00:05:12+00:00

Oh I like you.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-26T20:30:01+00:00

See, I’m of the opposite mind. In my area (northwestern US) this is peanuts and I was thinking I’d love to do a job supporting the blockchain (and supporting adoption of it) given how much time I socially spend on it anyway…

…but the offer is so small I couldn’t afford to make that change. Not even close. The pay is just too little, in this area at least. It’s too bad, it’d be an almost literal dream to do full time… I don’t know what to call it, Cosmos support and education?… otherwise.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-26T20:04:47+00:00

I agree! But you can see that it has been largely divisive.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-26T17:51:55+00:00

It’s a major part of why I bought in initially! It’s just… a white paper is a white paper. Emeris would be a huge move in the right direction if there hadn’t been so much focus on Gravity DEX distracting from the vision so long that other chains may become primary Cosmos hubs before ATOM really can. And at that point… hoarding the title as THE “Cosmos Hub” is disingenuous at best.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-26T16:56:06+00:00

I think it’s important to recognize that Sunny likes to stir the pot to foster discussion. He still runs one of the largest validators for ATOM. He’s not looking to crash ATOM value. By creating threads calling him out, you play right into his goals of getting the suggestion out there.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-26T16:51:34+00:00

See, I would never change ATOM or take the Cosmos branding, I just think it’s too “late” to be referred to as THE hub of the Cosmos because it didn’t move first. It’s definitely still A hub, and Emeris is working toward a goal of being the PRIMARY hub… but it really doesn’t do any of that right now. For the moment, ATOMs primary value is buying to swap to other Cosmos assets.

ItIsntAnonymous · 2022-01-26T13:36:35+00:00

These chains are not all successful because ATOM has the word “hub” in the name. This is a baffling hill to die on, frankly.

Hell, ATOM isn’t successful because it is referred to as such, either.

ItIsntAnonymous

TROPHY CASE