My thoughts around Stargaze, and Cosmos M&A. I am really excited about the prospect of Stargaze being acquired by the Hub. However, M&A in crypto (i.e. when one blockchain buys another) is challenging, and I anticipate some back-and-forth on hammering out a deal. Right now, there is a movement in Cosmos to consolidate chains into the Hub, which I view as purely a good thing. Consolidation means unity, strength, and incentive alignment. This is not anti the app-chain thesis, in the same way that traditional M&A is not anti new businesses. Some applications make sense as app-chains, but many are actually served better being closeby and composable with other apps. I think we should do more of it. In this case, Stargaze has a relatively small market cap compared to ATOM (2.7m as of this writing). This makes it possible to purchase with the ATOM Community Pool, which has $36m in ATOM. For larger acquisitions (i.e. $20m+), this would require a mint of new ATOM to cover the price, inflating the supply. Because a new mint is not required in this case, it makes things easier. One thing that's really important to me is that this would be the first, and last, acquisition we do from the Community Pool. It's important that the Community Pool is not viewed as an exit-package to other projects. In this case, however, I view it as highly synergistic, and beneficial to the Hub's upcoming permissionless VM. I will not, as a blanket statement, support any acquisitions from the CP after this. In terms of structure, there are a couple things that are really important to me for any kind of acquisition, including Stargaze: 1. Independence: i.e. the ICL is not expected to assist with maintenance or development (we do not have the resources). 2. Sustainability: i.e. the CP/ICL/ICF is not expected to assist with further funding as grants or otherwise 3. Integration: i.e. the team getting acquired commits to milestones to rebuild and integrate their application into the Hub 4. Hub-centrism: i.e. the app is using the Hub as their hub, meaning they do not deploy their core product in other places, except perhaps if they are non-core "outposts" that are managed by their core deployment on the Hub. 5. ATOM-based economics: i.e. the app should use a meaningful (20%+) of its revenue to benefit ATOM. If ATOM acquires the project, then their token should be ATOM. 6. Milestone-based funding: A large (50%+) portion of the acquisition funds should be contingent upon milestones, such as completed integration, volume, UX, etc. The Hub should never buy something, only to have the team leave/disengage afterwards. 7. Market-cap-based valuation: I have heard sometimes that the "token" does not reflect the value of the project. This may or may not be true, but if you start separating the project from the token, things get really messy. In my mind, the token of a project is the market-decided value of the entirety of the project. I am not, however, against modest premiums to encourage good actions post-acquisition like holding/staking etc. If purchasing a token means meaningful portion of the product are left out (i.e. the revenue, frontend, TVL), I think the Hub should not do it. Very excited to bring the Bad Kids home, and I look forward to helping with the proposal! Mag