Hi @RoboMcGobo
thank you for taking the time to respond to the proposal. I always believed your opinion on Osmosis would be Osmosis first, but I might have misjudged your involvement in Stride.
I do believe protocols should pick winners. However they should not depend on a single protocol, due to systematic / single point of failure risks.
The proposal that you are referencing btw. is where Stride asked the Terra community to deploy liquidity to Astroport on Terra. Similar how they deployed their ICS liquidity to Astroport on Neutron. So wondering where this question is on the Stride proposal if you want to go down that rabbit hole.
That statement is not correct.
Also incorrect.
The ampOSMO proposal is costing the community 10M OSMO * 0.5 (half deployed to Amplifier) * 10% APY * 5% reward fee = 25000 OSMO (7500$ per year) which will get distributed to $ERIS holders after the token launch. In return Osmosis stakers get a share of $ERIS, an additional product stabilizing liquid staking tokens that are natively redeemable and all benefits listed in the proposal.
The recent depegs on many stAssets is worrying and clearly shows the need for more options and stabilized alternatives. stATOM depeg 10%, stJUNO, stLUNA, stUMEE depeg 5%
It’s not an either-or-question, and both projects provide value in different ways to Osmosis.
Closing Thoughts
As you outlined, Stride is spending a lot of funds on Osmosis compared to Terra, so the Osmosis community providing community owned liquidity is totally fine and this proposal is not a “jab at stride” @yoggsaron. Protocols providing value to an ecosystem should be supported, especially if the internal cost of it is low - like providing liquidity using the CP.
We at ERIS are not Chain maxis, but Cosmos ecosystem maxis and just want to provide the best value for users of Cosmos chains. We don’t have the deep VC bags of Stride to bribe people, neither have a token launched yet, nor do we believe in bribing liquidity (similar way Osmosis is shifting right now). Product first, token later.
Commitment goes both ways and this proposal will be our question if Osmosis is also commited to us. If the Osmosis community thinks that the investment of $ 7500 per year (while creating $ 150k for the community pool) is a bad spend to bring more of our “cool things” over and allows us to get things started around ampOSMO, we can accept it.
But, in my honest opinion the proposal has a lot more positive outcomes for almost no cost. So I hope I was able to change your mind and for you to see the benefits for the Osmosis community.