Signaling Proposal to Verify Wosmo Token as a Verified Asset on Osmosis

This proposal aims to secure official recognition for $WOSMO as a verified asset on Osmosis, marking the beginning of its journey and potential impact in the ecosystem. Your support and feedback on this proposal are crucial as we all embark on this new phase.


-A YES vote indicates your support for removing the unverified status, enabling Wosmongton (WOSMO) to be displayed as a verified asset on the Osmosis front end.

-A NO vote signifies your preference for retaining the unverified status for Wosmongton (WOSMO), 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."


$WOSMO, initially a native factory memecoin on Osmosis, has rapidly evolved into a DAO governance token as well. This evolution follows its airdrop to over 220k $OSMO stakers, representing 40% of its total supply and recognizing their contribution to network security. Subsequently, a DAO was formed on DAO DAO, governed by $WOSMO holders, with contract ownership and remaining supply control transferred to them.

Factory token: factory/osmo1pfyxruwvtwk00y8z06dh2lqjdj82ldvy74wzm3/WOSMO

Further Information and Links


Website: WosmoWebsite

Twitter: Wosmo Official Twitter account

Onchain Metrics

  • Factory token: factory/osmo1pfyxruwvtwk00y8z06dh2lqjdj82ldvy74wzm3/WOSMO

-Since its launch, $WOSMO has been embraced by 240,000 active wallets.

-The DAO, within its first day, garnered 4000 OG members from the $OSMO community, actively contributing to the growth and development of $Wosmo.

Is there a Github or roadmap? How many have actually staked or performed any action in the dao?

1 Like

The DAO currently has over 4000 members, all of whom are dedicated $OSMO stakers. This is reflective of the 40% of the total $WOSMO supply that was airdropped to them.

Significantly, the project’s direction is now in the community’s hands, as the token ownership contract has been transferred to them. They will be managing about 60% of the total supply, aiming to enhance the $WOSMO ecosystem and potentially expand its utility.

The DAO was launched just yesterday, so while no proposals have been finalized yet, there are already several under consideration.

1 Like

For me a clear 'No".

We have been debating assets which have more use-case and a better track-record than WOSMO… and they are in some cases still waiting on the promotion to verified asset.

Furthermore, this is not a governance topic, but should be done via a form.



Where is the other 60% of the supply? All in the DAO?

This is inappropriate. On-chain signaling proposals for this status are discouraged. Really, any interface’s configuration is outside the jurisdiction of on-chain governance.
Instead, there is a form that can be submitted if it is believed that a token should become verified.

Personally, I think this token may be deceptive because it uses the symbol: ‘WOSMO’. (People may think this token owns the ‘Wosmongton’ brand)


Not yet. For security reasons, since we launched the DAO just yesterday, we’re aiming to achieve a sufficient level of decentralization power within the DAO first before transferring funds to the treasury.

This is crucial to prevent any potential bad actors from attempting to take over the treasury through governance manipulation.

Currently, the funds are still held in the minter wallet (osmo1pfyxruwvtwk00y8z06dh2lqjdj82ldvy74wzm3).

However, just one day post-launch, the DAO has already grown to over 4000 OG members, with approximately 6M $WOSMO staked. The number is on a steady rise, increasing hour by hour. We’re aiming for even higher increase of members in the DAO, striving for a Gini coefficient closer to zero to enhance equality and further decentralize.

An important note to highlight: Prior to the launch of the official pool on Osmosis Dex, all the tokens wil be transferred to the Wosmo DAO treasury.

This will be followed by the burning of the LP, a significant move underscoring our commitment to the project’s integrity and future.

Thanks for the heads-up about the form – we’ll make sure to adhere to the correct protocol and we genuinely appreciate the constructive criticism about the branding concerns.

And a big thanks for your dedication and passion in defending the brand we all cherish. Indeed, we’ve strived to distinguish ourselves by creating a unique design, and placing emphasis on ‘Wosmo’ rather than the full ‘Wosmongton’ name.

Our aim is to be commemorative in honor of Wosmongton. Our roots trace back to its inception. We’ve been following the story from day zero and were part of the Osmosis community from its birth, so it’s like we’ve grown alongside it. This movement is expanding, and our goal is to make it a community of enthusiasts who support Osmosis and the real OGs. A movement that can be an integral part of Osmosis.

Agree with Jeremy here.

The use of WOsmo can be interpreted as being affiliated with the token, the team or the community, when it’s clearly not. Already seen several users asking about it on telegram and discord.

I’m editing this part because I want to add a clear example at the end to better compare the two situations.

I understand your concerns, but I firmly believe there’s a significant distinction to be made here.

Take, for example, Injective Protocol’s experience. Not long ago, the first meme coin on Injective, named $NINJA, was launched. The term “NINJA” is a core part of Injective’s branding, used both for their ambassador program and as a moniker for community members. Despite the overlap, the introduction of $NINJA as a meme token didn’t elicit negative reactions from Injective’s core team. On the contrary, it was welcomed and even included in HELIX, Injective’s official order book.

This situation parallels ours in many ways even though there are clear differences between Wosmo and Wosmongton. The design and logo is completely different too and it’s evident in our distinct branding and messaging. We’ve always maintained that Wosmo is an independent entity, we state in our Twitter bio since day 1 this “not tied by gravity to Osmosis”.

Much like $NINJA, $WOSMO has been received positively by many OGs and active community members. The entire movement is governed by a DAO, indicating robust community backing.

That doesn’t answer my question. I can airdrop a dao token to every ethereum wallet in existence but to claim they are all “DAO members” would be very misleading.

Just to clarify, there’s a significant difference now compared to when I last responded. At that time, $Wosmo hadn’t started trading and was solely in the wallets of $OSMO stakers. Right after the airdrop, we established the DAO on Dao Dao, and over 4000 members staked their $WOSMO tokens to participate in governance. Since launching the pool the DAO nearly hit 6000 DAO members (this time with people that have also bought the tokens on Osmosis Dex) with almost 10M $Wosmo tokens staked.

I think the negative association also partially comes from the validator running under the name Wosmongton and being an absolute waste of validator space by not contributing anything to the protocol.

I guess that when the precedent would not have been set with the validator the responses might also be different with respect to the brand.

Small remark; the form is already linked in my previous post. Did you already find it?


I think this prop is doing it all backwards.
First WOSMO proves that it has user interest. Then it gets approved.
Like all the tokens on osmosis.

Also - this might be out of the scope of this discussion but- as much as I like the Wosmongton brand, this token airdrop looks like it has been made (by and) for OSMO whales. Retail users have been airdropped peanuts. The average staker probably has 500 Osmo staked. Was it that hard to put a whale cap and add quadratic? Like most successful airdrops (including OSMO which it is supposed to take inspiration from).

The poster is being disingenuous and insincere imho. Airdropping a token to Osmo stakers doesn’t create a community and neither does the fact that people have staked it on a ‘let’s see what happens’ basis. What concerns me more is the provably false claim that 40% of tokens were airdropped 1:1 for holding Osmo (and remaining 60% sent to their dao under ‘community’ control). The truth is that even with just a cursory look one can see that over 10% of all supply was airdropped in amounts ranging between 1-10million to a number of wallets that did not qualify for the airdrop at all, having little to no Osmo present before, during or after. It is some of these wallets that have been constantly selling and I suspect that the proposer would very much like to do everything they can to draw more users in and increase liquidity for him to sell off the rest of his self-created supply.

1 Like

Yep, I think we can now openly say THIS IS A SCAM

For those unaware :

1 Like