ATOM2.0 will split the community in half

The community is split, 50% 50% if ATOM2.0 passes it will lead to a community split or a fork.

If we count only stakers direct vote on ATOM2.0 we get this distribution: Yes 12,964,821 ATOM No 279,703 ATOM NWV 11,830,808 ATOM Abstain 520361 ATOM Clearly the proposal is extremely controversial, stakers are split 50% 50%, its also not popular as the majority of those 30k addresses are actually just bots using low balances and dust to influence perception of voters (snapshot as of Saturday) Seems like some external factors are influencing validators neutral representation of delegators. If the vote were to be unbiased the validator vote would represent the same distribution as the stakers vote, so why we ask why the validator vote is skewed towards yes. This justifies no with veto as a way for validators to protect the real interests of delegators, 50% of the delegator voting power is in disagreement its not a small minority.

ATOM2.0 treasury allocation described by Zaki and Youssef

Dilute 44m ATOMs and split:

• Consumer chains 10%

• The other 90% (risky speculative bets) 1 Invest in Cosmos early ventures 2 LP positions 3 token swaps 4 Lending 5 incentives to boost adoption of ATOM backed stable-coins

Explain to us why this is not worse than Alameda, dilute other peoples capital and gamble with it.

If the 90% used for gambling were to be removed then we would be left with a 4/5m ATOMs needed to fund consumer chains a more reasonable target which would be easily funded without the need for dilution but rather through a higher community pool tax (the tax shouldn't be in perpetuity and we should target a test amount for the first year not the full 4m).

The part of the proposal about speculating with stakers capital on LPing, loans, etc.. should be removed or Cosmos will just end up being the Do Kwon/ Luna/SBF/Alameda/FTX/Su Zhu of next cycle.

ATOM 2 is just gambling:

• 50% of LP positions are at a loss https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09192
• 90% of LP tokens eventually become rugpulls https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.07220
• VCs don't make money, 50% don't return 1x https://medium.com/the-mission/the-meeting-that-showed-me-the-truth-about-vcs-and-how-they-don-t-make-money-ab72b52b50cd
• Staking derivatives have extremely low profitability which doesn't justify the enormous risk and centralization pressure they impose on the hub, Eth staking derivatives cannot beat the yield of US treasuries, ETH/stETH is nominally at a loss and yielding less then 3%, ATOM staking derivatives have 3k daily volume which will translate in ridiculously low APR
• Liabilities are not revenue https://pastebin.com/fVQ81d7H FTT is a liability, when GAAP is applied. See current systemic risk.

Not one of ATOM2.0 proposers has ever managed any money, nor they have consulted any money manager, they have zero history of AUM peformance.

The ICF is behind ATOM2.0

ATOM 2.0 is a proposal by the ICF, no matter how much they deny, 2 ICF members (one senior) are cosigners (Ethan and Sam) we find it also very telling that they planned re-delegations at the same time as the ATOM2.0 vote, they will surely use those to reward compliant validators after the vote. After ATOM 2.0 gets implemented it will strengthen the case for ATOM to become a security as the treasury will be profit seeking and revenue sharing and ICF might be regarded as the issuing party as they are the main entity behind the ATOM2.0 paper and were one of the biggest entities during the ICO genesis allocation. Usually dilution is seen as the last alternative for financing and it’s a sign of a failing firm that can not gather funding in other ways, it’s the last chance, when you have no other option left, is the ICF solvent?

Why does a centralized council need to be created when the community pool works just fine? See Evmos for example. Anything in Atom 2.0 can be done slowly, while Cosmos reaps the reward of ICS, while 90% of chains like Solana fail, Cosmos took the turtle approach and got rewarded by being one of the best performers in the last year, now ICS is about to launch. Let’s see how it develops before committing to a highly risky plan, and please lets not split the community, lets abandon controversial changes.

A funny meme to take the edge off https://nitter.net/pic/media%2FFhOZae3XEAAIFww.png%3Fname%3Dsmall

Various papers

Risk analysis of ATOM2.0: https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/view/v3QYkKeqenjgK+yPi8bDmuYv4cOBalDaei4sLta6RTg/ https://pastebin.com/bgEqdKct - backup link

Initial incentive analysis of ATOM2.0 https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/view/stbpD61Y-yAkrUdV+a2GlwM6UE5A-K82O9mtu5rEwkQ/

this is not a gov proposal but a signaling prop