Gauging community sentiment on a closer alignment between Osmosis and the Cosmos Hub

General
1

Hello everyone,

This post is not intended as a formal proposal, but rather as a way to take the temperature of the community around a topic that occasionally comes up across the broader Cosmos ecosystem: the possibility of a closer structural alignment between Osmosis and the Cosmos Hub.

Both chains already play central roles within the ecosystem. Osmosis has established itself as the primary liquidity and DeFi hub, while the Cosmos Hub continues to evolve as a coordination and infrastructure layer for the interchain. Because of this natural complementarity, some have started wondering whether a deeper alignment between the two could strengthen the overall structure of the ecosystem.

One area where this could be particularly relevant is the evolution of IBC routing, especially with developments such as IBC Eureka. If the Cosmos Hub increasingly acts as a routing layer for interchain activity, a closer integration with Osmosis could help streamline interchain flows. Given that a significant share of liquidity and trading activity already passes through Osmosis, aligning more closely with the Hub could make the routing architecture more efficient while helping accelerate the adoption of new IBC infrastructure. In such a setup, using the Cosmos Hub as an IBC router could also increase network usage and generate additional fees across the ecosystem.

A stronger alignment could also support the Hub’s evolving roadmap as it positions itself more clearly as an infrastructure and services provider for the broader ecosystem, including institutional-facing services. In that context, a tighter relationship with the primary liquidity venue of Cosmos could create a more coherent and complete stack where liquidity, routing, and shared infrastructure reinforce each other.

More broadly, this type of alignment could help address a recurring challenge in the ecosystem: coordination. While the sovereignty of appchains is one of the core strengths of Cosmos, it can sometimes lead to fragmentation of efforts and vision. Bringing two of the most important pillars of the ecosystem under a more unified banner could help rally forces, reinforce collaboration, and create stronger cohesion across the interchain. A clearer alignment between Osmosis and the Cosmos Hub could provide a strong signal of coordination and shared direction for the ecosystem.

From a broader perspective, deeper alignment between Osmosis and the Cosmos Hub could strengthen the strategic positioning of the ecosystem by bringing together its main liquidity engine and its coordination and infrastructure layer. Both communities could potentially benefit from stronger collaboration, clearer alignment of incentives, and a more cohesive interchain architecture.

The goal of this post is simply to hear the community’s thoughts.

How do you feel about the idea of a closer alignment between Osmosis and the Cosmos Hub as the ecosystem continues to evolve?

Curious to hear different perspectives from the community.

3 Likes
2

We supported the previous talks to merge the two or have the Hub buy Osmosis, but the ICF’s new vision might not be aligned with that idea. Plus, Osmosis is worth so little now that I doubt the OSMO community would accept a buyout.

1 Like
3

Personally, I think now’s the time to gather support (like you’re attempting to do) and have the Hub buy Osmosis. Osmosis is worth quite a bit more than Stargaze, but the ATOM community pool funds are just sitting there and having a native DEX will be a plus for the institutions the Hub is trying to onboard.

I think both communities would benefit from the renewed vigor. I encourage you to do what you can to get Osmosis onboard and then bring it to the Hub community.

4

If discussions about a potential merge, migration, or deeper integration involving Osmosis were to emerge in the future, it would probably be important to frame them around a few principles that could make such a move both technically sound and broadly acceptable to the community.

First, technical clarity should be a priority.

Osmosis has evolved over years and its codebase includes many layers of optimizations specific to its DEX architecture. If a migration or integration were ever considered, the community would likely expect it to be an opportunity to simplify, modernize, and clean parts of the stack, rather than simply moving the existing system as-is.

This raises some natural questions:

- Would the migration include technical refactoring or simplification of the DEX architecture?

- Who would maintain and evolve the codebase long-term?

- Would development restart with a focus on new features and innovation, rather than only maintaining the current state?

Many community members would probably view a migration as worthwhile only if it improves the long-term technical trajectory of the DEX.

Second, liquidity and utility remain the core value of any DEX.

The real asset of Osmosis is not only the technology but also the liquidity and activity around it. Any credible discussion would need to address how liquidity migration would realistically occur, what incentives might be required, and over what timeframe such a transition could happen.

Third, economic sustainability should be clearly understood.

There have been claims that Osmosis historically generated meaningful annual revenue with relatively modest maintenance costs. If that is the case, it would be useful for the community to look at:

- revenue trends

- trading volume evolution

- TVL evolution

Understanding whether the DEX remains economically strong or is declining would be an important factor in evaluating any major structural change.

Finally, the Community Pool will likely be one of the most sensitive topics in any discussion of this scale.

If treasury funds were involved to facilitate a migration, an acquisition, or liquidity incentives, the expectations around responsible capital allocation would be very high. A reasonable approach would likely involve:

- clear justification for every allocation

- milestone-based spending where possible

- preserving enough capital to support future ecosystem opportunities

For example, many in the community might consider it prudent that no single initiative should consume an overwhelming share of the Community Pool, leaving room for other strategic integrations or migrations if they emerge later.

The Cosmos ecosystem is evolving quickly, and major structural decisions should ideally strengthen the long-term technical foundations while keeping enough flexibility to support future innovation.

If a serious proposal ever emerges, addressing these technical, economic, and governance questions early would likely help ensure the discussion remains productive and constructive.

5

We were already working on a proposal along these lines, and have just posted a proposal for the discussion integration of Osmosis modules under the Cosmos Hub on the Hub forums that addresses these points. Would love if you could add your feedback on the Hub forum post!

The initial migration would focus on continuity and stability by redeploying existing Osmosis modules and liquidity. Integration into the Cosmos Hub will also create opportunities for further improvements to the frontend, as the modules are now in a stable state.

6

This idea keeps coming back again and again, and it is so misguided that probably no one even wants to admit authorship of it.

It creates a real risk of breaking something that currently works, while offering only minimal chances of success. The current token valuation is terrible - I personally bought OSMO at around $2, so exchanging my tokens for ATOM under the current conditions would feel like outright theft.

In my opinion, you should focus on improving the core functionality of the product and removing unnecessary applications such as Polaris, MAGMA, and similar projects. These kinds of apps only damage the professional image of the ecosystem.

If you truly want closer cooperation with Cosmos Hub, then cooperate - but keep the projects separate and maintain independent tokens.

You should also avoid blindly following temporary market narratives, such as trying to reshape the project around institutional adoption. That could easily turn out to be a dead end. Today this is the dominant narrative, but tomorrow the market may value independence from institutions and stronger privacy much more.

Recent regulations have strengthened projects that are closer to institutional frameworks, but in the future the opposite could easily happen, where independence becomes far more valuable.

Improve the product, remove unnecessary clutter, stop spending revenue on questionable grants for low-quality apps. Instead, consider buying back tokens from the market and burning them.