Create Paste
Top Pastes
Recent Pastes
Settings
Account
Untitled Paste
Anonymous
Views
18
Visibility
Private
Expires
Never
Created
October 2022
View Raw
Download
Keep Your Heads to the Sunny Side of Things, an Atoms Stakeholders Letter Read it all or stay poor. A warning this letter is blunt because dilution is blunt a tool. The Main Request for the Proposal/Manifesto: -- Detach the various proposed infrastructure upgrades (building the scheduler and allocator) and the inflation change into 3 separate proposals. These functions should be multiple/ separate proposals. Please do not try to pass everything at once under the guise of ATOM 2.0 LET’S PUMP IT MOON NOW!!! Moon boi dopamine feedback loops are bad time preference, and thus it is easy to take advantage of drug addicts. A fool is parted with his money. –- Consider alternative mechanisms to fund consumer chains and The Treasury. Dilution is one of many options possible (most likely the worse one), the Cosmos philosophy was always based on voluntarism. -- The new treasury governance system is trying to substitute/bypass the community pool and should be fully reworked. Governance by VETO does not work, more on this later in this letter. If the new ATOMs end up getting issued, they should sit inside the community pool to which the treasury will periodically ask a budget. This method forces The Treasury to be accountable to delegates and validators. Regardless if The Treasury governance mechanism gets reworked with the help of the community or not, a trial run should happen beforehand. -- Test the new governance mechanism BEFORE issuing the new $ATOMs. If the allocator and scheduler proposal pass, postpone the inflation change proposal to after the other two modules are built, deployed, and tested for enough time with community pool funds. (Minimum 6-12 months). The treasury/allocator module should be tested with a trial run, (before changing the inflation to such massive degree is even considered) given the design decisions will be only visible AFTER the infrastructure is deployed, (look at how explorers and wallets favor validators that are displayed first, which creates centralized staking outputs just because of just a small UX detail imagine how this can be magnified in fund allocation at the UX and backend level). Test the modules with a much smaller amount, the budget should be allocated in tranches and should come from the community pool and not all at once. Let the Atom Stake Holders start by funding ten consumer chains with max 100k $Atoms each, to see how the proposed system functions. The budget should be allocated based on projections and expected returns. If the expected returns are met, then a bigger budget may be proposed. The scope of the treasury should also be defined clearly without any room for interpretation. It should only be used for Cosmos Hub development and consumer chains bootstrapping; The Treasury should not be used for speculative enterprises or liquidation of $Atoms for other assets with profit-oriented goals. The Criticism is Very Simple: Instead of increasing the supply by 20% (reckless number, Stake holder dilution, Stake holders are now the lender of last resort.) Why does the community not start with 1,000,000 $Atom and if we are able to deploy it effectively then we think of bigger numbers (not 20% of the supply). Why start big and fail when you can start smaller and scale up? The old saying goes, “give the government a dollar, and they will later ask for 10 more”. Cosmos is not a small project. Gambling with such a large portion of the supply is adolescent behavior, disingenuous, and very unattractive to white glove funds, institutional capital, and more importantly long term $Atom stake holders, who understand time preference, all such groups need to see long term conservative monetary policy. Not liberalized monetary efforts, which can be changed at the whim of a central planning party, at a Dionysian fueled conference. The Funds Already Exist "To date, we still have over 1,400 BTC, over 50,000 ETH and just over 20 million ATOMs in the treasury,” ICF director Arianne Flemming told CoinDesk. “At today's prices, that's worth over $104 million. And that's even after the nonprofit deployed $25 million in capital to fund over 50 projects, Flemming said.” (link to the funding page was removed). This quote is from Nov 11, 2019 for all we know right now the ICF is sitting on more then 1 billion. The initial cosmos token distribution looked like the following: 5% went to the ICF’s initial donors – Disclosure of donors? 10% went to the Interchain Foundation (ICF). 10% went to All in Bits, Inc. (AIB), the corporation behind Tendermint. 75% has been distributed according to the results of the private (68%) and public fundraisers (7%). Cosmos community pool owns 1.1m $ATOMs. All the funds needed for Cosmos development and any needed liquidity to launch ANY amount of consumer chains already exist. There is NO NEED to print more money to save the Cosmos economy. Do we want to repeat what the Fed did with the after covid stimulus and free money printing, that has gone on since the 1970s, which has fully destabilized the global economy? Should the ICF fund consumer chains? They have the money to do it. Why should MORE money be printed if the funds already existing were not yet successfully deployed? Is there scarcity of funds? The above distribution and treasury data is quite clear there is no lack of resources, no need to create new ones, just use the existing ones more effectively. If the argument is the ICF fails to deploy funds effectively and transparently why should the treasury council assembly and DAOs be different? On-chain entities are not bound by law (supposedly), Colombia jurisprudence is null, and Switzerland’s works for the party, not the counter-party. Funding options, other than dilution of $Atom stake holders exist, if the this is a hostile takeover and someone must give in, then we would prefer if the ICF funds were decentralized into a DAO, avoiding dilution of $Atom stake holders. We are not suggesting this is the right thing to do, we are just showing that multiple options exist. We are against dilution and any form of theft. Hopefully this does not become a witch hunt to find which $Atoms to dilute or steal and put on the sacrificial altar to transform the Cosmos Hub from the largest port city in the Ethereal, into Zaki’s fund. Sleight of Hand What concerns us the most is that there is absolutely no justification or explanation for the amount requested for The Treasury, insiders with deal flow can front run the subsidized funds, too fuel their own consumer chains; using the public stake holder as the lender of last resort for their speculative bets. Again, a 20% in increase in supply is stake holder dilution. Dilution is a threat to your private property. Cosmos Stake holders who have supported the chain since the 2016 ICO are holding all the risk. Basic capital management teaches us that there are assets, and liabilities. An asset is something that pays a cash/Dollar/fiat yield (fixed income). A liability pays you nothing, and you hold the risk. Cosmos has grown into a quasi-asset, as staking rewards pay out in the numeri $Atoms, but not $Dollars, giving the near promise of a fixed income asset. Speculators, validators, teams, ect, still must dump their $Atoms to meet their $Dollar liabilities, thus limiting its fixed income asset ability. Every grant recipient will have to do the same. By giving The Treasury 20% of the supply, Atom Stakeholders have removed years of growth, and turned $Atom back into a strictly risk on asset, where the stakeholder, inherits all the liability, and no faculty of fixed income exist. The goal is to move beyond quasi, and deliver less risk to the stake holder, not increase risk. Bitcoin is more risk on than $Atoms, as one can only bet on annualized yield of the underlying, and can not access guaranteed fixed income. The fact that the allocation amount was not justified in any way or form and sold to the public stakeholders at a festival means they just thought of the biggest number they can get away with. $Apple does not increase shareholder risk, and create new priest hood of high voting potency, at festivals; this would be too clear of a hostile attack against shareholders. sleight of hand will not work here. This proposal does not account for failure and fraud, they expect the collective to be able to manage close to half a billion $Dollars (at current valuations) without anyone attempting to steal or front run access to The Treasury funds. ‘Biggest fraud in a generation': “The looting of the Covid relief plan known as PPP Many who participated in what prosecutors are calling the largest fraud in U.S. history — the theft of hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money intended to help those harmed by the coronavirus pandemic — couldn’t resist purchasing luxury automobiles. Also, mansions, private jet flights and swanky vacations. “ Human behavior, the average is very well defined, and in front of us all the time. There is much cope from the community, that the treasury board, will be subject to the community/ stakeholders. Congress elects positions for the FED, and the Government tries to sell to the average Joe, that Congress is subject to the voter, and the FED subject to Congress. Everyone knows this is adult Santa Clause. Stakeholders should not be subject to the constant debasement of central planning boards, whether they be central banks, or developer teams gone rogue who have morphed into developer bureaucracies. “They came into their riches by participating in what experts say is the theft of as much as $80 billion — or about 10 percent — of the $800 billion handed out in a Covid relief plan known as the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP. That’s on top of the $90 billion to $400 billion believed to have been stolen from the $900 billion Covid unemployment relief program — at least half taken by international fraudsters — as NBC News reported last year. And another $80 billion potentially pilfered from a separate Covid disaster relief program. “ “The prevalence of Covid relief fraud has been known for some time, but the enormous scope and its disturbing implications are only now becoming clear." This is the tip of the iceberg, everyone in crypto, especially guys like Zaki who were at Bitcoin meet ups in the early days understand the complications of Central banks, and never-ending bank bail outs, which use the citizen stakeholder, as the lender of last resort. The Honeypot Creating a huge honeypot just encourages parasitic rent seeking and destroys ad-hoc ambitious self-willed development. The ad hoc self willied devlopment is what makes $Atom stick out from the rest of the POS/DPOS and Tendermint forks which are centrally planned by venture capital incubators. Everyone is jelouse of $Atoms real network effect. Meta Cafes Law is just to juicy to ignore. Taking 20% of the float with almost zero accountability and all the conflicts of interest. This proposal is either extremely naïve; not accounting for malicious allocation, or its willfully malicious. When it comes to capital management, always suspect willful malicious behavior, this is risk management 101. Maybe the proposers have their own consumer chains set up already to capture the flow of $Atoms? Which are subsidized by the stake holder, who holds all the risk. It would be extremely trivial to create a high amount of consumer chain copycats and forks; with very low effort to try to appropriate as much $ATOMs as possible and there is no penalty for misallocation, leading to zero accountability. Anyone can set up an incubator and make the consumer chains appear as if they all come from different developer teams and entities. Very easy to do, this behavior already goes on in networks like Ethereum, Solana, Luna, Tron, and Avax & more. The proposers may have big partners and behind the curtain deal flow, while only seeking to pump and dump tokens on the IBC community, while making sure the $ATOM stake holder inherits all the risk. The dilution will be followed by a constant dump on the market, every single newly created $ATOM will need to be dumped on the market by the recipients of the grant to deliver on their promises, they must pay their dollar liabilities, CAPEX/OPEX. (This could be offset by a better design using atom backed stable coins or bonds, but they did not even attempt this, just bad design). Imagine if 20% of Bitcoin supply was dumped on market over the course of 1-3 years, imagine what impact it would have, that is what they are planning to do with ATOM. Teams must dump their $Atoms to pay their Dollar/Fiat liabilities. What Is Clear What we know for sure is that: "Designers of systems tends to design ways for themselves to bypass the system." "If a system can be exploited it will be, any system can be exploited." - Systemantics: The Systems Bible The people proposing to inflate the supply are the same designing the mechanism that will administer and deploy the newly minted ATOMs, nobody noticed the huge CONFLICT OF INTEREST? Dilution is a Hidden Tax, & an Attack on Private Property Dilution is an attack on private property, which is a big deal, in a non-liberal world. Castle doctrine, and Stand Your Ground, exist in richest country in the world, for a reason. Bitcoins entire argument is to stop the hidden attacks on private property, via inflationary debasement, the hidden tax. Defi is filled with post modern language; such lexicon does not mean, that dilution, is not an attack on your property. You can be sure your favorite Cosmos Twitter influencers and validators are being bribed in more or less explicit ways as we speak, by either promising council positions, future funding for their enterprise, most of them will accept the implicit bribes in more or less good faith, nobody will acknowledge that money is being de-facto stolen from stakers and holders, and redistributed to a circle of insiders who can use social channels to influence the general opinion. Anyone can run a digital influence operation in 2022, anyone can be Edward Bernays, in the age of the Sovereign Individual. If you are an $ATOM staker and reading this you need to acknowledge how predatory the world is, never give the benefit of the doubt to someone asking for $500m. This $Atom proposal is diluting $Atom stakeholders, offloading risk on them, and creating a potentially unaccountable voting party which powers cannot be easily revoked. The infrastructure should be deployed BEFORE budget is allocated, the new committee and voting mechanisms should be tested before 20% of the supply is appropriated by a foreign entity with no track record with a voting and incentive mechanism which will be designed to be gamed (who wouldn’t design themselves a way to get a piece of $500m, expecting people to be honest with such a large jar of free money is naive). ‘It’s a feature not a bug’. The question is, are $Atom stakeholders risk takers, who get stepped on, or risk managers? We are in one of the most volatile time periods of human history, and as the data shows, the risk manager wins in such a time. This proposal creates a class that is fully insulated from risk (those with inside deal flow, and knowledge.) This proposal creates huge potential for backdoor dealing and conflict of interests. Devs and capital syndicates could be deploying sidechains to get the $ATOMs and allocate to their own project or could be accepting bribes to support and get funding for consumer chains which are propped up by venture capital syndicates, and white glove money management cartels. Proposals for overly expensive contractor jobs could be passed to benefit friends & family(FNF), (lets give $1m worth of ATOM for that nice marketing initiative worth $50k.) Who will oversee the pledging process? Should an ethics committee be created to oversee funding? Should a law firm be hired to sue every misbehaving party? How about a new SEC? It is very easy to go from improving the wheel, to destroying it. Should we request the funds administrators to enter contracts, that make them personally liable with fraud if they do not deliver on the promised performance? Do we want to create an endless stack of bureaucrats ready to pillage The Treasury or do we need to create ethic committees that constantly watch for conflict of interest? Is this Blockchain? Let us guess, we should just trust, and not verify? As 2016 ICO investors and Tendermint supporters, we do not even know why, it is even considered that the people holding the funds are the same as the people deploying the funds. There should be clear separate entities and every expense should be justified on chain, without contributors having access freely to multisigs, quarterly reports are just laughable and will lead to no accountability. Dilution is theft under hidden clothes. Crypto has spent the last decade warning citizens of the world about inflation being a hidden form of tax and property confiscation. Already we are seeing proposals from Zaki to take speculative bets, in LP shares with diluted $Atoms, creating incredible misalignment, which would require to market dump $ATOMs for other assets. Who will manage the speculative positions? Why should we take speculative positions when it is clearly understood that 95% of allocators do not beat the market returns of the S&P 500 or a 5-year Annualized $BTC return? Are we so naive to think that we will beat the market? Should 20% of the new $Atom be created for a group of insiders to create deal flow and promise future returns in weaker currencies with less history and unproven track record then $ATOM? Do we want to believe those NEWLY INFLATED TREASURY $ATOMS in unaccountable hands will produce a return rather than a loss? Is this the best way to do it? Expanding the treasury, by expanding the token supply, and thus the float, at the cost of the stakeholders is the same thing that parasitic rent seeking banks and transnational firms do too nation states, and then nation states do too their own citizen stake holders. A giant negative feedback loop, where the ingroup gets rich, and you stay poor and inherit all the risk. “Sorry bub, you are not in the club”. Dilution of your position, so an ingroup, can leverage funds for back room deal flow which you will not be privy to. This proposal makes clear that someone will get rich, it will not be $ATOM holders, it will be insiders. No One Is Even Asking Why? 1. Is this proposal risk free? 2. Where does the risk exist? 3. Why do we need to issue close to 20% supply of the circulating $ATOMs? 20% increase in FLOAT. 4. Why not issue 10% or 5% or 1%? 5. Does Printing money or ATOMs have no repercussions? 6. Is printed money free money? Who pays? Where does the value come from? 7. What happens if the allocator module is not able to deploy funds effectively? 8. If The Treasury is shown to have a failure will the issuance be rolled back? 9. Why does the issuance need to be upfront? 10. How come the newly minted $ATOM isn’t put in the community pool first? 11. How do stakers make sure this enterprise is not dilutive? 12. Where are the checks and balances? What happens if someone is caught stealing from The Treasury? 13. Can stakers withdraw support for council/assembly members or once appointed they are not impeachable? 14. Where is the qualitative and quantitative experience on deploying such massive amounts of capital? 15. Do we want to create a culture of parasitism and rent seeking? 16. How come the authors of the atom 2.0 whitepaper are not talking about the risks and possible implementation failure? Are they assuring us a 100% success rate? 17. Do the authors of the proposal expect minting such massive amounts of money will only attract good players, and not bad players which will try to steal or be gamafied against $Atom stake holders. 18. Can those newly printed ATOMs turn known good actors in the community into bad actors? 19. Should the issued ATOMs be minted inside the community pool and distributed in small tranches, forcing The Treasury new governance entities to be accountable to the community pool if they want more budget? 20. Do the people proposing this initiative think it is possible to deploy such a massive number of $ATOMs without incurring misallocation, increased risk such as fiduciary, stealing, and bribing and gamfication of capital against $Atom stake holders? Given that there was not any specific reason why they went with the 50 million $Atoms, we can assume they want to get the maximum amount they can get away with. Why is there not even hint of a mention of maximum quarterly/yearly expenditure, or they expect to spend it all in one year? We suppose the best way to make sure to pillage as much as possible from The Treasury, is to have such a massive amount of money and high number of initiatives; so that nobody can check them all. Pillage as fast as you can, and as much as you can, as the world goes. As hunger increases, as supply side demand destruction increases due to sanctions and totalitarian covid restrictions, as the Dollar destroys every risk on asset and currency in the world. This is smart, this is what pirates and buccaneers do. These governance mechanisms, council, treasury, etc... should be deployed on chain and tested for effectiveness before even proposing to dilute 20% of $Atom supply. These people are reckless for proposing such a massive honeypot for bad acting. ICS chains will get $Atoms granted to them, and the Stakeholders get "paid back" by them giving us new tokens with an unproven track record? For every $Evmos, $Osmosis etc... there will hundreds of speculative bets that will not pay off. Giving the top numéraire ($Atom) away, so you can be paid in $JPY, and not Dollars? Give us bitcoin, we give you Doge. Give me Dollars, we give you CNY. Give me Gold, we give you Copper. Give me topsoil, I give you dirt. Give me fresh water, I give you salt water. Give us $Atom, and we give you ICS chain tokens. It is purely dilution and debasement without accountability. Do $Atom stake holders want to inherit all the RISK by giving away staking rewards to an ingroup that has no accountability or oversight, while they promise to pay back stake holders with ICS chain tokens which are less lindy, less mimetically dense, have less monetary history, and are more RISK ON, than $Atom already is? When the FED fund rate went hawkish, and the $Dollar begin to move to the reflexive upside, where did all Cosmos IBC capital flow? To the oldest numéraire with the most lindy meme, which is $ATOMS. All IBC tokens dumped against $Atoms. People want $Atoms. Not some manufactured tokens, propped up by a venture capital team who has set up ICS chains. This is not lindy. $Atom is in the top fifty in the crypto currency index, it recently was near the top 20. This is profound performance for going through its first development cycle and is akin to being a best performer in the S&P 500. The top 20 in the 500 index make up for most of the markets returns. The dollar (and federal fund rate) will have have reflexivity to the the down side and $Atom will once again trade high beta to the S&P 500. There is a More Realistic Standard to Hold Yourself to. The goal would be not so bad, if done in an honest (voluntary) and much smaller size (without creating a new treasury entity but rather by putting the newly inflated funds in the already existing community pool which would fund DAO’s directly), the DAO idea is potentially useful, but the tools should be built before asking for funding, we do not like the way this was proposed as a single package at a conference which appeared more like a Burning Man Music Festival, which would leave huge design freedom to insert malicious voting/governance incentives and bad design choices to favor insiders. We do approve that there is no penalty or accountability mechanism was proposed, I guess they expect stakers and holders to “figure it out afterwards” as there is no need to design any way to keep council and DAO participants honest beyond the vague threat of losing reputation, “oh no if they discover I pillaged few millions dollars’ worth of $Atom I’m going to lose my rep”, “oh no sad me”. Sorry, but many people in crypto have shown they would rather retire in quiet Cayman Islands, with a few million, than care about the reputation they always tried to hide. VETOs Never Work, Filibusters & Paper Terrorism. What happened to Blockchain? Expecting VETOs which have a difficult and lengthy coordination process to be an effective tool against constant attempt of misallocation is not a fantastic idea. How fast can I spin up proposals to appropriate money vs. how much effort it will take to coordinate a veto? For every veto another ten proposals will be attempted, constantly trying to counteract misallocation will become an extremely time-consuming job, which an extremely small minority will be forced to partake in if they do not want to see their own position debased. Wasting time with paper terrorism and filibusters is what baby boomers in the Parliament do. They did not mention the threshold for VETOs, leaving themselves as much freedom as they need during the design process; 50% to veto? 40%? 80%? 10%? Will veto need quorum (making the coordination process extremely difficult.)? They are good designers thus they are trying to shift the funding process from: - Funded only if proven honest after being subject to stakeholders scrutiny when proposing to the community pool. Here the burden is on the proposer asking for money, this model creates some accountability, participation is voluntary, you get my vote only if you convince me your proposal is a net positive. - Funded by default even if dishonest unless you manage to spot my malicious proposal and gather enough consensus to stop it, under this new paradigm EVERY malicious proposal will pass by default unless VETOed, this is not a good design mechanism if you want to foster accountability. Here the burden is on the stakeholder, the persons/syndicates whose money is being played with. Being a stakeholder now becomes a full-time job, as people will be constantly trying to receive funds which deliver have no measurable efficacy in giving a return back to $Atom stakeholders. the moment you do not participate in The Treasury governance process, participation becomes mandatory under constant threat of theft. How many people will participate in keeping The Treasury honest? How many people will give up after they understand the VETO mechanism was engineered to make things extremely difficult to stop? The new treasury council and assembly structure is trying to substitute itself to the community pool, rather than building on top of the community pool strengthening its power. DAOs work because they are based on voluntary participation and funding, this initiative is as distant from voluntary as it can get, there is nothing voluntary about mandatory dilution. Creating over engineered social governance and diluting value and voting power from $Atom holders to such massive degrees is not the right way to do it. The community should be involved in making the design choices for the new governance tools (council and The Treasury), the proposed structure is completely flawed and will be exploited, governance by veto should be scrapped, penalties for misbehavior should be implemented and control should be given to the community pool without unaccountable parties acting as middlemen in the funding process. It seems like they already have partners they will give this fifty-million $Atom to, or are they going to spin up their own consumer chain corporate firms and give themselves the $Atoms, and hedge/dump? Almost all tokens built on IBC/$Atom went to 0 against $Atom. Anyone promising returns on hundreds of consumer chains is just delusional. All consumer chain tokens, will be market dumped for $Atoms and than to $Dollars. This is the predatory reality of crypto. Capital flows to the most lindy and liquid numéraire during deflationary credit shocks. The charts, the order book data, and the on-chain archeology does not lie. It is as empirical as the wheel. Anyone can view this. This is Blockchain. Why 20% of the supply, how many consumer chains? Who, What, Where, When, Why, How? How many consumer chains do they expect to fund in one year? How much is the cost for each? There is ZERO study on this nor any data. Zaki used 150k $Atoms to fund Neutron and other initiatives but deploying 150k $Atoms is not a case study for deploying 50m $Atoms, even thinking that deploying such a small comparable percent gives any right to assure successful deployment of such a massive amount is a joke and insulting to all $Atom Stakeholders. How many consumers chains do they want to deploy 50, 500, 5000? What percent of the consumer chains will be profitable in terms of $Atom returns? Should we create a standardized model for grants with an expected risk return? This proposal lacks any kind of study on expected returns on The Treasury management, collective infrastructure management etc. This is a trust, do not verify situation. This is a faith market. It is 2022, are we really going to sit in the Tabernacle of the Pharisee and Sadducees and have faith they shall give yield? Should we have a very precise project plan and then decide how much to deploy instead of having a fat bag ready to be pillaged. Can we consider each funding proposal on a case-by-case basis instead of issuing the ATOMs upfront? Are they worried about the cost of the Dollar, and the need to front run rising federal funding rates? Why can we not have a governance proposal with simpler terms? Such as, we want to fund ten consumer chains for one million $Atoms, and this would get funded by the community pool, if this works out then we can scale it up. Why start big, by risking the entire existence of the hub and its reputation as safe heaven asset to make it into a fund? Other than value dilution, governance dilution is also being implemented. This is what you call a hostile takeover in legacy markets. This is close to class A structuring with ZERO accountability. Where is the Fiduciary? Stand your ground, protect your castle, because dilution is a threat vector against personal private property. This proposal is threatening private property and using $Atom stakers to create value to be extracted from parasitic middlemen and rent seeking gate keepers who grift as Cosmos Maximalist, while longing Bitcoin, Dollars, and dumping tokens created in IBC to extract value from $Atom Stake holders. Fifty-million $Atoms, is dilution. This is the proper term, why do they refuse to use the proper term, in which capital markets have had consensus for hundreds of years? Right now, there are 300m $Atoms circulating, they want 50m. Therefore the $BTC memeplex exist, so that purchasing power can attempt to save itself against constant debasement and dilution from central banks. How is your portfolio since the FED went hawkish? It is also why the SEC claims to exist, to stop ingroups, from diluting the shareholders, who originally took all the startup RISK. Dilution is an attack on private property. No ingroup, is accountable to the majority. The $Atom chain is already 18% inflation, thus encouraging stake holders to bond to the network. The inflation is a hidden tax, on those refusing to participate in chain security. The proposers want a year’s worth of inflation, while you get almost zero, but take all the risk to secure chain security. With this set up, $ATOM will be hitting severe nominal negative returns against the Dollar, and BTC 5 year annualized. Imagine trying to deploy all those funds at once (there is no timeline on expected deployment so we can only assume it will be an all-out pillage right away) All central banks, The Fed, say they are in service to the national shareholder, the public citizen thus, their mandates of ‘Price Stability’. But the FED is just manipulating the markets for second means under the guise of a public good. The FED is not subject to Congress, and Congress is not subject to the voting citizen. This is true for all Central banks, and like kind central banking administrations worldwide. The same can be said about Eth foundation, Eth stakeholders, and now the central planning board of the Interchain foundation. The only object which makes an ingroup subject to the impressions of the meek, is la`wsuits which is held up by the threat of duress. A classical understanding of Hobbes’s Leviathan makes this clear, as does observing the natural world you live in. “Covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.” -Leviathan By electing a priest hood of A class voters, which supersede all Cosmos stake holders one can expect a ‘Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei’ situation. (There is no power on earth to be compared with him) Where “him/ei” the all-powerful, is defined as the A class voting Priesthood. $Atom inflation should be cut only AFTER revenue from ICS comes in and should be cut only if substituted by predictable revenue calculated through yearly averages, the market should gracefully adjust the inflation rate by gradually decreasing the lower bound on inflation. The Inflation curve should not be modified to fund the treasury upfront, if treasury is funded slowly it will keep the whole thing a bit more accountable and honest. This entire proposal seems to be done without any grounding which benefits the $Atom stake holders, who have taken all the risk, since 2016. The only grounding, this proposal has, is one would want to pillage the treasury during such volatile capital markets while the Fed fund rate destabilizes all global credit markets. “Digital Gold, or Digital Pirates” – Chris Derose. The exoteric projection of the ingroup that this is a community good, the esoteric understanding of the ingroup, is that this is there pirate ship. Are you on the ship enjoying booty with the Captain, or waiting on the shorelines expecting the best, while the worst approaches the horizon? Simple Questions, With Simple Answers Go a Long Way We will terminate this letter with these questions: 1.Is issuance of new $ATOMs under the promise of future profits dilution? If yes, 2. Who’s value is being diluted? 3. Is dilution a form of theft? 4. Are the newly inflated ATOMs property of stakehodlers? 5. Are the newly inflated ATOMs property of the community pool? 6. Are the newly inflated ATOMs property of The Treasury? 7. Are the newly inflated ATOMs property of council members? 8. Are the newly inflated ATOMs property of devs and insiders? 9. Who will have most control over the newly inflated ATOMs? 10. Will stakeholders loose partial or total control over the newly inflated ATOMs? 11. Who will benefit the most from redistribution? 12. Atom holders? 13. Insiders? 14. How many $Atoms need does one need to be an “insider”? 15. Are the authors of this manifesto insiders? 16. Are they blowing the whistle? We will propose substantial amendments to this monstrosity of a white paper called ATOM2.0 in future posts. If you support the messaging in this letter, please help us spread it on social media by posting quotes from it, and send it to all validators you know, so that before any decision is taken everybody is well informed. This is not an attack on cosmos leadership, but our goal is to define if leadership is for Cosmos, or only seeks to use Cosmos for rent seeking, we hope a new and improved proposal without dilution comes out of this.