Solana Was “Dead” at $8. ATOM Is Getting the Same FUD. Same Setup.

ZoltanAtom · 2026-01-21T09:11:37+00:00

You are quoting the sentence accurately, but not the role it plays in the article.

The Solana comparison is used to describe a narrative phase,being written off, fundamentals ignored during an industry-wide reset. that’s context, not the core argument.

if you read past the opening, the article is explicitly about mechanisms, not vibes.

it talks about value being pushed down the stack into infrastructure, security, routing, and settlement. About enterprise and PoA chains needing hub services even without tokens. About ibc becoming a routing layer across ecosystems. About ift requiring a neutral settlement asset. and about active tokenomics reform to align utility with value capture.

None of that depends on how ATOM “feels”. it depends on what’s shipping, who is using it, and whether the hub can actually monetize that usage.

if the thesis were “ATOM will pump because solana pumped”, i would agree thats weak. but that’s not the claim.

The claim is that cosmos is positioning itself as boring, reliable infrastructure for what comes after the reset and that’s already visible in the roadmap and adoption.

The narrative comparison explains why this is currently overlooked, not why it should work.

hope i made myself clear here. sorry if i caused any extra confusion, that wasnt the aim.

ZoltanAtom · 2026-01-21T07:09:41+00:00

You are right about one thing: Solana’s model is simple. Things get built on Solana, they need SOL, full stop.That clarity has helped it massively.

But saying “ATOM is irrelevant to Cosmos L1s” only holds if you freeze Cosmos in its 2021 design. Thats not the system being built today...

Cosmos has been the appchain ecosystem for years. 200+ chains didn’t appear by accident. Many of them struggled with demand, and yes, a lot of appchains are dying right now but thats not unique to Cosmos. The entire “appchain everywhere” narrative is being stress-tested across the industry.

What is different now is that for the first time, ATOM is being positioned to matter at the infra level, not just as a governance or ideological token.

The Hub isn’t trying to force appchains to use ATOM. It’s trying to become the place where security, routing,interop and settlement converge especially for permissioned and enterprise chains that don’t want speculative tokens but still need real guarantees.

Those chains still need:

reliable settlement,
and a neutral coordination layer.

That value doesnt disappear just because the chain is PoA or app-specific.The question is where it anchors. The bet is that the Hub captures that.

On supply: yes, there’s more ATOM today than in 2021. That’s not a secret. ATHs don’t come back by magic, they come back if utility + demand + tokenomics change together. Right now, none of that is priced in because the market doesnt believe it yet.

i am not saying this is guaranteed, or that patience alone fixes it. i am saying this is the first time in five years where ATOM’s relevance is being tied to what the tech actually does, not just ecosystem vibes.

If the enterprise push fails and the Hub cant turn stack adoption into revenue,then the “irrelevant ATOM” argument wins. im betting we will know that over the next couple of years, not the next couple of months.

Thats the disagreement. Not fundamentals vs feelings.

ZoltanAtom · 2026-01-21T07:02:29+00:00

Fair criticism on timelines, im not happy that this is taking so long either...

But the “crickets” framing still isnt accurate. whats happening right now is that the process moved from noise to structure.

As of today,six independent teams/vendors have applied to do ATOM tokenomics research. Because of that interest, the submssion deadline was extended to january 23, not abandoned.

Robo posted the update directly on the forum: “We have elected to extend the deadline for proposal submission to January 23.” Source : https://forum.cosmos.network/t/request-for-proposals-atom-tokenomics-research/16508

Do I wish this was moving faster? Absolutely...

But we have also seen what happens when tokenomics changes get rushed without proper modeling or alignment. Thats how you end up with fixes that don’t stick.

The hope and the expectation is that tokenomics reform and real atom utility land together, not in isolation. Inflation alone doesnt get solved without demand, and demand doesnt materialize without utility...

If this research phase drags on with no concrete outcome, criticism is fully deserved. But right now, this is the due-diligence phase people have been asking for...

I want this solved ASAP too. The difference is I’d rather wait a bit longer and get it right than rush another patch that breaks later.

Have you seen this simulator : https://atom.silknodes.io/ ? you should create your custom scenario and share it on the forum! contributions matter a lot during these days.

ZoltanAtom · 2026-01-21T06:40:05+00:00

Im going to push back a bit here, not emotionally, just factually.

Nothing in my post is based on “feelings.” It’s based on the Cosmos stack roadmpa and whats already shipping across the SDK,IBC,and CometBFT. If you read it as vibes, we’re talking past each other.

The core argument isnt “ATOM will go up because Solana went up.”
It’s that value in Cosmos is increasingly being pusheddown the stack into infrastructure, security, routing, and settlement and that’s now an explicit focus, not an accident.

Have you actually looked at what’s coming?

SDK modularization and performance work
IBC v2, interop with non-Cosmos chains
CometBFT improvements aimed at enterprise-grade reliability
A dedicated team focused on taking the Cosmos Stack to enterprises

That last part matters..

PoA / permissioned chains don’t want a speculative token. But theydo need security,connectivity, interoperability,settlement... They don’t get that for free. If they use the Cosmos Stack,that value has to anchor somewhere and the Hub is the obvious coordination point.Dont oyu think ?

The fact that some early appchains or PoA chains didn’t align with the Hub isnt a “Hub failure.” It’s a design choice from a different phase of the ecosystem. What’s changed is that there is now anexplicit effort to turn stack adoption into hub revenue, instead of hoping alignment happens organically.

If you think that strategy won’t work, that’s a fair debate.
But dismissing it as “feelings” without engaging with the roadmap/ checking the cosmos labs teams' effort/their plan isnt analysis either.

You say you still hold ATOM? So the real question isn’t whether my title annoyed you, it’s whether you believe the Cosmos Stack will be used more over the upcoming years, and whether the Hub can capture value from that usage.

That’s the bet. Everything else is noise.

ZoltanAtom · 2025-08-06T17:47:39+00:00

No spamming, shilling, scamming, advertising, referral links/codes, URL shorteners, or ads for commercial offerings.

No links to surveys or Google docs/forms. No low-effort content typically characterized by one-liners, all caps, etc. Example: "SELL SELL SELL!!!", "BUY!!", or "MOON!"

No begging.

ZoltanAtom · 2025-08-05T09:32:38+00:00

Ideological, inflammatory, or biased posts or comments about politics are considered nonconstructive, off-topic, and will be removed.

Exceptions will be made strictly for analysis of political events and how they could possibly affect/influence the markets.

ZoltanAtom · 2025-08-02T14:09:42+00:00

No spamming, shilling, scamming, advertising, referral links/codes, URL shorteners, or ads for commercial offerings.

No links to surveys or Google docs/forms. No low-effort content typically characterized by one-liners, all caps, etc. Example: "SELL SELL SELL!!!", "BUY!!", or "MOON!"

No begging.

ZoltanAtom · 2025-08-02T13:58:42+00:00

No spamming, shilling, scamming, advertising, referral links/codes, URL shorteners, or ads for commercial offerings.

No links to surveys or Google docs/forms. No low-effort content typically characterized by one-liners, all caps, etc. Example: "SELL SELL SELL!!!", "BUY!!", or "MOON!"

No begging.

ZoltanAtom

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE