DAO Proposal – Establish Transparent Rules for Token and Liquidity Pool Blocking

Proposal Discussion
1

Dear community members,

I would like to raise the issue of the blockade of my Cosmo token and four associated liquidity pools, for which I paid a total of 80 USD (20 USD per pool activation). Unfortunately, despite contacting support, I did not receive a clear answer regarding the reason for the blockade. Unofficial discussions suggested that the reasons might be:

  1. The similarity of the “Cosmo” name to “Osmo”, which might have been perceived as potentially misleading to users.
  2. A rapid increase in liquidity, which, combined with the “Supercharged Pool” mechanism, may have raised concerns about the operation’s intent.

While I understand that protecting the community and the platform from potential risks is a priority, the lack of transparent rules creates challenges for developing and managing projects. Therefore, I would like to propose that the DAO consider adopting a regulatory framework for token and liquidity pool blocking to prevent similar situations in the future.

Proposed Solutions:

  1. Establishing an official document that outlines clear criteria for:

    • Token naming conventions (e.g., guidelines regarding name similarity to existing projects).
    • Minimum and maximum liquidity thresholds for new pools to prevent unjustified blocking.

  2. Automatic notifications and a grace period – If a token or pool raises concerns, the project should receive a clear warning and be given a chance to comply with the requirements before any blocking occurs.

  3. Refunding pool activation fees if a blockade occurs without a clear justification, ensuring fairness and minimizing financial losses for participants in the ecosystem.

  4. Regular community consultations – Changes to the rules for blocking tokens and pools should be discussed and voted on by the DAO to maintain the spirit of decentralization and avoid decisions made behind closed doors.

We hope for your support for this proposal to improve transparency on the platform and foster innovation without fear of arbitrary blockades. Implementing clear rules will benefit both users and the management team, ensuring smoother cooperation and preventing similar misunderstandings in the future.

Thank you for your attention, and I encourage you to join the discussion and support this initiative.

Sincerely,
Raphael

2

You’re trying to scam people into buying a worthless token by single-sided providing liquidity on one pool and then manipulating the price of it on another pool. It’s pretty obvious why these pools were blocked from the frontend, and it’s fully within the rights of the owner/operator of that site to do so.

The chain is permissionless, you can create your own dex if you want to use these pools.

3

Thank you for your input. However, several critical points need to be addressed, especially considering that you are part of the support team, as indicated by your role on the forum. This raises concerns about how this situation has been handled.

Accusations of scamming are unsubstantiated and unfair.
I strongly deny any intention to deceive or manipulate anyone. The token I created and the pools I launched followed standard procedures. Providing liquidity—whether single-sided or multi-sided—is a legitimate DeFi practice. If the platform has concerns about these methods, they should be clearly communicated in advance. Blocking my pools without prior warning or specific justification is not only inappropriate but also contrary to the principles of transparency and fairness.

As a member of the support team, your response reflects the platform’s stance.
It is concerning that instead of providing clear reasons for the block, you have resorted to accusations. Your involvement in this discussion as part of support suggests a conflict of interest. Rather than accusing participants publicly, the support team should aim to explain the reasoning behind such decisions and offer solutions to address potential issues.

Blocking pools arbitrarily undermines trust and decentralization.
Blockchain-based platforms are built on predictability and trust. When pools are blocked without warning or justification, it discourages participation and development. If actions like these are necessary for the platform’s safety, they should be outlined in clear guidelines approved by the community. Otherwise, it creates an environment where users are penalized arbitrarily without recourse.

Single-sided liquidity and cross-pool trading are not manipulations.
These are common and accepted strategies for bootstrapping liquidity and promoting token adoption in decentralized markets. If there are restrictions on these practices, they need to be communicated upfront. Punishing participants after the fact, without providing clear rules, sends the wrong message to those who want to contribute to the ecosystem.

Suggesting I build a new DEX misses the point.
While the chain is permissionless and I could theoretically create my own DEX, that is not a practical solution. My goal is not to fragment the ecosystem but to collaborate and improve the existing one. This platform can only thrive if all participants—developers, users, and support staff—work together to ensure fair and transparent governance.

Decentralized governance requires transparent policies.
If the frontend operators can block pools based on internal decisions without oversight, it creates unaccountable gatekeeping. A decentralized ecosystem should rely on clear and public rules, decided through DAO voting, to avoid such situations in the future. Everyone deserves to know the criteria for participation to avoid arbitrary enforcement.

I am not looking to bypass rules or challenge governance—my aim is to establish clear standards that protect both the platform and its users. This will foster trust, encourage participation, and ensure a fair, decentralized environment for all.

4

I agree with a lot of the points made and appreciate the professionalism retained.

I believe Osmosis Zone maintainers always try to remain neutral, transparent, present equal opportunity, and avoid speculating about scamming; only the most blatant signs of deception are addressed. There are qualification criteria/rules about token listing (which is why we don’t see unofficial copycat tokens on Osmosis Zone (like fake “ATOM” tokens, .e.g.)), but not any rules about filtering pools, specifically.

The COSMO token itself isn’t being blocked–it’s only some of its pools that are being filtered, but the filtering is NOT arbitrary. Currently, some pools are filtered because of the large numbers being shown are grossly misleading.

The Osmosis Zone maintainers are planning to improve Osmosis Zone in ways that will better handle various structures of liquidity such that misleading representation isn’t possible (and that will be able to unblock these problematic pools). The current ‘solution’ of simply filtering out a couple of these pools is only a quick band-aid fix, but is really not ideal for anyone (for maintainers, token creators, nor traders).

I don’t think there’s need to post rules about which pools will be shown on Osmosis Zone. I might be alone in this, but think instead of filtering pools with crazy numbers, it should just flag the asset as deceptive.

All that being said, there is a big misunderstanding I hope to clear up:

Osmosis Zone is a 3rd-party app, not owned by the Osmosis DAO. The fees to create pools are charged by the Osmosis chain to simply exist on the chain, and all these pools are accessible onchain. There is no guarantee that any pool will apprear on Osmosis Zone, and it doesn’t promise that it will. Although Osmosis Zone will generally try to represent all liquidity, there is no obligation for it to do so.
The Osmosis DAO has no jurisdiction over the Osmosis Zone app. A DAO proposal to control aspects of the Osmosis Zone app has been established as inappropriate. Even if a vote were to take place and pass, there is still a chance that nothing would come of it.

1 Like
5

Thank you for the explanation regarding pool filtering and Osmosis Zone’s policy. I understand that the platform aims to avoid misleading representations, but I must express my disappointment with the current situation. I invested my own capital to provide liquidity and support the development of the ecosystem, only to be met with accusations of manipulation, which I find unacceptable.

All my actions were carried out in good faith, with the long-term growth of the project in mind. If the structure of my pool raised any concerns, I expected open communication or guidance on how to improve it, rather than filtering without warning. Such an approach discourages liquidity providers, who are essential to the platform’s operation.

I understand that changes are being planned to better manage liquidity and prevent misleading information – and that’s a step in the right direction. However, I would like to suggest a more transparent approach: instead of hiding pools, consider informing users of the risks or marking assets as potentially misleading.

I am committed to collaborating and continuing to support Osmosis Zone, but I also expect fair treatment and transparent communication. I would like to know what criteria are being used for pool filtering and what I can do to restore the visibility of my pool.

My intention was to ensure high liquidity in my pool before releasing the product, so that each new transaction wouldn’t artificially increase the price. Is such an approach not allowed? If there are specific rules or guidelines regarding this, I would appreciate clarification, as my goal has always been to support the ecosystem with sustainable liquidity.

6

Why do we have a new thread for it, while there was already one?

Not saying that it is in this case, but normally that is done to hide specific pieces of information that are located in other locations, to sway people’s opinions.

7

Why do we have a new thread for it, while there was already one?

In my opinion, these are two completely different issues. The first one is about unlocking pool 2159 and was initiated by technical support. I was directed to create a thread on this forum as a way to resolve this matter.

The second topic is more general and concerns the transparency of rules and the creation of a document that would clearly specify which pools will be filtered and which will not. This initiative came from me.

As you can see, these topics have different goals and reasons for being raised, although they share a common origin stemming from the authoritative blocking of the pool and the lack of feedback on why it happened.

To summarize, neither issue has been resolved. While there was information indicating that the front-end can do whatever it wants, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be transparent in its decisions. Moreover, routing was also blocked, and I’m unsure whether that falls under the authoritative front, or if it’s a part that could be regulated through a DAO vote.

8

In essence you ask for unlocking the pools on the front-end AND transparency on the other thread as well.

What is most important, is that you’ve got an elaborate response from @JohnnyWyles in the other thread, which is quite relevant and a valid response to your questions; both here and in the other thread. But by making another thread you obscure that response for people only reading this one, which is a bad habit imo.