Greetings Osmosis Community,
We believe TORI’s verification on Osmosis aligns with our mutual goals of expanding and enriching the Cosmos ecosystem. Your support and feedback on this proposal would be invaluable to us.
Voting
A YES vote indicates your support for removing the unverified status, enabling Teritori (TORI) to be displayed as a verified asset on the Osmosis front end.
A NO vote signifies your preference for retaining the unverified status for Teritori (TORI), which includes continued warning labels and additional steps for token exchange.
A NO WITH VETO vote implies that you believe this proposal could be detrimental to Osmosis, and that the proposers should be penalized, including the forfeiture of their deposit."
Background
Teritori, a Cosmos SDK Layer 1 blockchain and a superdApp. Our utility token, TORI, is instrumental for governance and serves as a means to access the diverse features of our superdApp, which includes:
To complete the above information:
Teritori “super-dApp” could be seen as a decentralized operating system, gathering several Web3 features, dApps and networks into a single app. (web, desktop, mobile).
As example, to understand the long term vision of the product, in the current beta version you already can go in the dAppStore and add Osmosis Dex swap feature in your own Teritori : https://app.teritori.com/swap
Here you’ll find the last Q3/Q4 detailed dev report:
As an early investor in TORI, I recognize the few difficulties encountered but the team is working all the harder and is listening to the community, it would be a pleasure to see TORI fully listed on osmosis, it is one of the tokens I use frequently on osmosis! A lot of ground has been covered and this is just the beginning, Tori has my full support, I can’t wait to see what the future holds !
I´m very glad to see things seriously moving forward! There´ve been some useful implementations recently that I really like. And soon, I think lots of other users from EVM and other ecosystems will like, aswell. The free tool for COSMOS chains to create Multi Sigs is very unique and is also really cool.
Teritori has constantly delivered and if they finally can make the The R!OT Ethereum happen in the next week, they deserve to get listed as verified, as that has been the most awaited feature since, which unfortunately has constantly been delayed.
Tori is a great token with only growing utility. A strong team which nevertheless built a very strong marquet bear from which it was not spared. I hope that Osmosis will validate Tori for the well-being of this great project.
I agree with listing TORI as a verified asset. It is a project which has been working on products for a while now and has shown to have the intention to stay. Getting the asset as a verified asset will make it easier for a lot of people to find the coin on the main page of Osmosis which might benefit the project as well.
As far as I am aware there will be no cons related to this proposal in this specific case.
I don’t like all the comments from accounts which are clearly here as one-timers to support this proposal after which we will never see them here again. I would rather see a clean thread with people talking about pros and cons.
If the idea here is to keep token verified status props off-chain then the requirements document should be updated to not list exactly that as the first criteria for eligibility.
Yep, this looks as though it sends a different message to proposal #528, which looks to leave maintenance of the Osmosis website in the hands of Osmosis Labs
Stakecito ABSTAINed from voting due to prop #528 and the additional governance load created from submitting a proposal when the decision should be made by Osmosis Labs via the official application route (the form Johnny has linked)
So according to these guidelines (I didn’t check them, stupid me) Teritori is following the exact route which is prescribed. Via governance approval it can fill the form. Changing to a “Yes” here.
@JohnnyWyles is this something which can be reviewed / revised to avoid governance overload?
Yes - have passed on to listings and this has been removed from the file. Proposal 528 was clear that governance doesn’t directly dictate the listing on the main frontend.
