u/bcryptom

Also, the ICF recently published a few nice charts covering various IBC metrics:

https://datastudio.google.com/reporting/d583358f-43dd-412c-83f3-1657c2668d10/page/p_6lbm23o2yc

ATOMSCAN has transaction data for this year and last. Keep in mind this only includes the Hub and not IBC volumes or transactions on other Cosmos chains.

https://atomscan.com/stats/transactions/volume

Are you familiar with sampling?

Thanks for pointing this out Captain Obvious.

Who said anything about an instant rewrite? There clearly have been various opinions voiced here as well as on Twitter and the forum, the purpose of this poll is to get a sense for what the community finds problematic with the whitepaper.

There is just no way I can support the creation of a 55 million ATOM Treasury without fully understanding the governance details. The "let's figure out the governance structure later" approach is an awful idea. Just look at how that worked out with the ICF...they haven't published an asset breakdown in over 2 years! The tech vision is dine and dandy, the tokenomics overhaul, without additional details, is a disaster waiting to happen.

I like your idea. To answer your question, the Treasury would hold 55 million ATOM at the end of the 36 month transition period, the equivalent of about 14.5% of total ATOM (assuming none is sold/invested).

I read the whitepaper. I've commented on it on the Cosmos forum. My original point stands. The proposal reads as "ATOM stakers please do A and we promise to do B and C." This is crypto, skepticism is warranted. The proposed checks and balances HAVE NOT been figured out, the devil is in the details. Even Youssef said as much on the Hub forum: "All the governance leg work will be done post proposal voting, not before but you will get a sense of the proposed direction prior to the on-chain vote." Many questions are unanswered. Who will manage the councils? How will they be elected? What will be the process for removing them? How can we prevent the same 10 Cosmos insiders from sitting on all the councils and ultimately driving decisions making? We need a constitution and governance mechanics first, then we can vote on how to seed the Treasury.

Bingo. Much of the issuance plan relies on ICS fees offsetting loss of ATOM yield, but ICS isn't even live yet!

Planning on checks and balances? We should figure out the checks and balances FIRST, and then the funding SECOND. This is crypto after all!

I generally agree with Jae's view. Overall, I support the idea of a Treasury directed at funding Cosmos ecosystem projects, but the proposed funding (ie 55 million tokens after 36 months) amount is just too large, and banks on the idea that ICS fees will offset loss of ATOM rewards, which at this point is pure speculation as ICS isn't even live yet. Additionally, the proposal suggests we should first fund the Treasury and THEN develop a governance mechanism, which is absolutely insane. Agreeing on the governance structure should come first! Generally, I am afraid that the Treasury structure will just serve as a point of centralization managed by a select few Cosmos insiders.

Well, by using a product like yearn.finance, you are taking on additional smart contract security risk.

Thanks.

I do understand your concern. However, most exchanges allow you to create a read-only API. If you have concerns, you can also white-list wallet addresses.

I don't think Delta or cryptocompare actually let you measure the value of your holdings...so in other words, if i have 1 btc on Coinbase, and 2 on Kraken, is there any app that would automatically import those positions from each exchange, and tell you have a total of 3 btc, with a $ value?

This would be the case if this long bought at the top say somewhere around 8,500. Do when know when this position was entered into?

Why would a long position in btc get liquidated? Price has been going up this month...this post makes no sense to me.