Why Was Cosmos Hub’s ATOM 2.0 Proposal Rejected?

Today, the Cosmos Hub community voted to reject the ATOM 2.0 whitepaper.
Key TakeawaysThe Cosmos Hub community rejected the proposal to implement ATOM 2.0 whitepaper in a hotly contested vote.
37.99% of tokens voted “NoWithVeto”, signaling strong opposition from the community.
The controversial proposal was criticized for its overhauled tokenomics and desire implement multiple complex new tools simultaneously.
Share this article. The Cosmos hub community rejected the ATOM 2.0 proposal in a heated vote. Based on a whitepaper written by Cosmos founder Ethan Buchman and 11 others, the proposal was promoted as the next step in Cosmos hub’s evolution. The whitepaper proposed a radical change in ATOM’s tokenomics as well as building two new tools, Interchain Allocator (and Interchain Scheduler), which they claimed would help cement Cosmos Hub’s position as one of the most important appchains within the wider Cosmos ecosystem. However, the vote was tight until the end. The final result was 47.51% in favor, 37.39% voted for “NoWithVeto”, 13.27% abstained and 1.82% simply voted yes. Although most tokens were pledged in favor, Cosmos Hub has its governance mechanics that ensure that a proposal can’t pass if more that 33.4% of the voters vote for “NoWithVeto”. This prevents the Hub falling prey to 51% attacks. Even if it passed, amendments would be necessary. Even if the proposal passes, amendments will be needed. The Interchain Scheduler is an on-chain MEV exchange, while the Interchain Allocator would enable mutual stakeholding across different IBC chain chains. This is a very interesting issue. The whitepaper advocated for increasing the issuance rate of ATOM tokens temporarily to help subsidize the Hub and then decreasing emissions over the course of 36 months. Critics argued that the change to monetary policy was not necessary and that details were missing regarding how the Hub would use the ATOM. Others were skeptical that ATOM emissions could be replaced by other sources by the time they wane. The likelihood is that the various components of ATOM 2.0 will be resubmitted to community for voting as their individual projects. This is similar to how a detailed proposal to Interchain Security, another ambitious initiative to position Cosmos Hub at the center of the Cosmos ecosystem, was passed in March. Disclaimer: At the time of writing, the author of this piece owned ATOM, BTC, ETH, and several other cryptocurrencies.Share this articleThe information on or accessed through this website is obtained from independent sources we believe to be accurate and reliable, but Decentral Media, Inc. makes no representation or warranty as to the timeliness, completeness, or accuracy of any information on or accessed through this website. Decentral Media, Inc. does not provide investment advice. We do not provide personalized investment advice or any other financial advice. This website’s information is subject to change at any time. The information on this website could become obsolete or incorrect. You may not be able to update any information that is outdated, incomplete or inaccurate. We also reserve the right to change any information that is incorrect, incomplete or outdated. If you need investment advice about an ICO, IEO or other investment, we strongly recommend that you consult a licensed financial advisor or other qualified financial professional. We do not accept compensation in any form for analyzing or reporting on any ICO, IEO, cryptocurrency, currency, tokenized sales, securities, or commodities.See full terms and conditions.Recommended News