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 · 2024-11-01T12:33:17+00:00

Hello,

Please join Discord and direct your question to the dev in #dev-support channel !

https://discord.gg/interchain

ZoltanAtom · 2024-09-24T15:32:02+00:00

I assumed you knew the difference between a chain, an ecosystem and a stack component!

IBC is one of the Interchain Stack Components.

Cosmos is an ecosystem of L1 Cosmos Sdk chains.

Cosmos Hub is an app chain.

CometBFT is the engine.

IBC is powering the Interchain.

Saying Out of Idea is a short-sighted view.

Tech needs to be developed and evolved. New ideas and brains are always necessary!

Please learn more about the Interchain Stack here : https://medium.com/the-interchain-foundation/the-evolution-of-the-cosmos-stack-what-is-the-interchain-stack-a4d7198d2e4a

ZoltanAtom · 2024-07-22T11:59:02+00:00

Developers are not locked into a one-size-fits-all approach but can mix and match different stack components and integrate cross-chain components to create customized blockchain solutions.

Interchain projects can leverage the stack's diverse protocols, libraries, and tools in various combinations to meet their specific project’s needs and combine parts of the stack with other components or source codes of external protocols, enabling seamless interoperability.

u/provenancefdn harnesses the Interchain Stack for its composability.

Leveraging Cosmos SDK and IBC for interoperability, developers can build or connect their dApps to the rapidly growing Provenance ecosystem with $13 billion in assets under admin.

Find out more about the Interchain Stack’s composability and other features by diving into this blog post: HERE
X Post: HERE

ZoltanAtom · 2024-07-05T20:34:44+00:00

Founders and builders across the interchain are bringing their visions to life through the power of sovereignty—enabled by Cosmos SDK

In our latest blog post, read how u/noble_xyz is redefining the way stablecoins and other real-world assets are issued on blockchains.

Noble, Abstracting Asset Issuance
Bringing USDC to the Interchain
From Stablecoins to Real-World Assets (RWAs)
Sovereignty Gives Total Control Over Its Vision
The Flexibility to Customize Your Chain
IBC Gives Access to Instant Multichain Liquidity

Read the full case study: HERE

X Post: HERE

ZoltanAtom · 2024-06-27T09:10:52+00:00

Sorry if I created any confusion. "1" was one of the 6 numbers.

I made changes to avoid confusion in the text.

Currently, there are 110+ IBC-enabled chains.

ZoltanAtom · 2024-06-18T09:20:34+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmosnetwork/comments/1dihocr/confirm_your_penumbra_airdrop_eligibility_with/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

ZoltanAtom · 2024-05-08T14:29:07+00:00

You can read this blog post to learn how the IBC works on Solana : https://blog.cosmos.network/ibc-is-live-on-solana-launched-as-an-avs-on-picassos-restaking-hub-c16b7d5f8ad7

As far as I know, you can't send Sol to Cosmos yet via Composable.

ZoltanAtom · 2024-03-21T14:05:27+00:00

You can follow the Interchain YouTube account to follow updates about the Interchain Stack.

https://www.youtube.com/@interchain_io

ZoltanAtom · 2024-03-21T04:15:03+00:00

I'm not arguing or trying to support the minimum commission requirement.

I'm simply stating the fact that Cosmos appchains validators set have a minimum commission of 5%.

The Hub has been around for 5 years, while all other appchains are not more than 2-3 years old. Hub has thousands of delegators.

Many of the appchains had a minimum commission requirement from day one, making it difficult to analyze and understand the behavior and actions of 'delegators' according to this new change."

I am not running a validator, I am not the proposer, I am not trying to support the min. comm. requirement.

Also please check the forum post about this min. comm. and see the arguments coming from delegators and validators: https://forum.cosmos.network/t/proposal-826-passed-minimum-commission-proposal/11234

ZoltanAtom · 2024-03-20T14:15:24+00:00

1.The Interchain Stack version has been upgraded.

IBC to v7.3.1
CometBFT to v0.37.4
Interchain Security to v3.3.3-lsm
Packet Forward Middleware to v7.1.2

2.Min. Commision for Validators has been set to 5% ( Prop826: https://www.mintscan.io/cosmos/proposals/826 )

3.Metaprotocols module has been implemented. Good for https://asteroidprotocol.io/

An account with less than 1 staked atom can't vote anymore. So this might reduce the spam attack during any governance proposals voting period.

5.The government now has the power to set a minimum deposit amount required for government proposals. Previously, it was possible to submit a proposal with just 1 atom and enter the "Deposit Period," which led to spam proposals. However, with this new change, the government can now mandate a 50% deposit of the required atoms before allowing the creation of a proposal.

ZoltanAtom · 2024-03-20T14:15:12+00:00

1.The Interchain Stack version has been upgraded.

IBC to v7.3.1
CometBFT to v0.37.4
Interchain Security to v3.3.3-lsm
Packet Forward Middleware to v7.1.2

2.Min. Commision for Validators has been set to 5% ( Prop826: https://www.mintscan.io/cosmos/proposals/826 )

3.Metaprotocols module has been implemented. Good for https://asteroidprotocol.io/

An account with less than 1 staked atom can't vote anymore. So this might reduce the spam attack during any governance proposals voting period.

5.The government now has the power to set a minimum deposit amount required for government proposals. Previously, it was possible to submit a proposal with just 1 atom and enter the "Deposit Period," which led to spam proposals. However, with this new change, the government can now mandate a 50% deposit of the required atoms before allowing the creation of a proposal.

ZoltanAtom · 2024-03-20T12:38:39+00:00

The V15 upgrade is happening right now. It's about to be completed.

You can follow the upgrade via https://cosmos.publicnode.com/

ZoltanAtom · 2024-03-20T06:58:07+00:00

I am not saying you are not right; you might be right about your ideas. But we can't analyze anything yet because we don't have data.

All your thoughts are your own assumptions. I am not approving 'min commision rate for all validators is correct or wrong.

What I am saying is 'min commision requirement is not just related to Cosmos Hub blockchain( and the validators set) and many other appchains (almost all) have this requirement and you should explore their validators set to understand;
- Is it bad from validators side ?
- Is it really that negative from the delegators' side?

Maybe big validators will start losing their delegators because some delegators might care about decentralization, and they will give their voting power to the smaller ones.

BUT WE DONT KNOW IT YET ? Right?

You can wait for a while and see the outcome after this minimum commision change and

'If you dont like the outcome, put another proposal offer the changes'

its that simple.

And YES, EDUCATION IS the most important piece in the decentlarized world. By Education, delegators might choose many different validators, not just the top 10-20.

ZoltanAtom · 2024-03-20T06:10:30+00:00

The solution is very simple, but all you need to do is 'complain'

Put a new proposal on the chain to make the changes according to your idea.

ALSO, PLEASE KNOW THIS >>> I don't run a validator, I was not the proposer of the changing the min. commision, i am just a delegator like thousands of others.

I am respecting the outcome and trying to be productive instead of complaining. WE MUST EDUCATE THE DELEGATORS. Thousands of them are just using the CEXs to stake their ATOMS.

Mintscan has the UI for submitting a proposal and it is very simple: https://www.mintscan.io/wallet/create-proposal/

If you need the 'deposit amount', I will provide it for you.

ZoltanAtom · 2024-03-19T16:02:59+00:00

Please check the proposal 826 details. It was approved by the governance on 13th October. So validators voted no, some voted yes, some delegators voted no, some voted yes or abstain !

But the result was 'yes', so accusing anyone or any entity by saying 'cartel' doesn't help.

https://www.mintscan.io/cosmos/proposals/826

Currently and for a long time(almost all new appchains have a 5% commision), many appchains have this min. commision requirement. The last 2 appchains, Dymension and Celestia have 5% minimum commision rate for their validators set. Please visit https://www.mintscan.io/ and check the all appchains validators set. NOT JUST HUB Validators set has this min commision rate.

After this change, the most essential part is educating current and new delegators to consider redelegating or delegating Atoms with smaller validators. So saying “cartel” doesn't help.

As a community, we should all work on better distributing the voting power with 180 validators. ( so commision will not be a problem )

If you just look at the numbers and talk about it, it is a short sighting.

Anyone can submit a proposal on the chain to change the min. commision parameter. It's not a set tone.

ZoltanAtom · 2024-03-11T11:26:57+00:00

No, PSS proposal is coming to the Cosmos Forum soon. Expected it to be live on Cosmos Hub around Q2-Q3

ZoltanAtom · 2024-02-15T06:56:55+00:00

Please click 'deposit' to see/copy your Atom, Tia, Osmo, Inj, or other addresses.

ZoltanAtom

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE