Major Changes for ATOM: ICS2.0 Has Arrived! (PSS Explained⚛️) $ATOM 0:00 Introduction 1:18 ATOM the ICS-specific blockchain 2:22 ICSv2 (Partial set security) 5:40 A game changer for ATOM 6:18 A shock between supply and demand 6:43 Why rent ATOM security VS BTC & ETH? 8:48 Wath's Next ? 10:02... PSS: Top-n 11:58 PSS: Opt-in 12:31 Validators will be risk managers 13:05 ATOM becomes a Cosmos Hub 13:47 Conclusionshow more

On YouTube 🇺🇸:

Sur YouTube 🇫🇷:

@Curious__J I think everybody agrees that this is world class educational content. You guys should talk :)

@Curious__J thanks for the support, this video has been validated and supported by the AADAO team 🙌

Are you Pro Delegator or Provalidator? I’m looking to delegate some $ATOM to you.

I am a sovereign cosmonaut 🧑‍🚀and partner of ProDelegator, not Provalidator 🙂

Great video. This should give an answer to those who wonder what the use of $ATOM is.

most likely I am wrong, but here are my thoughts: This is very interesting. Atom should have made these live a year ago. I am unsure how many of the current Cosmos SDK-based chains will shift to using ICS 2.0; so far, only two chains are using ICS, which is bearish. - Builders now have a handful of options to buy security from, including Eigenlayer, Karak, Symbiotic, and Babylon. - Eigenlayer is leading by a wide margin compared to others. - From a traction perspective, Eigenlayer, Symbiotic, and Karak individually have more projects building on them than chains trying to use ATOM ICS for security. - Additionally, these teams move faster in terms of development compared to the ATOM community. there are many SDKs to choose from, like OP stack, Arbitrum, Polygon, & starknet, etc. I think the no. of projects using the Cosmos SDK is only decreasing.

Thank you for your message; I would be happy to discuss it further with you (DM open). -> Atom should have made these live a year ago. The difference between making ICS2.0 available a year ago and today is insignificant for two reasons: - The number of projects launching during a bear market is very small (it would have needed to be launched 3 years ago to be significant). - All projects launched in recent years share validators with the hub or have a relatively small number of validators; ICS2.0 is very easy and logical to implement. -> only two chains are using ICS, which is bearish. That would be true if the number of chains entering ICS wasn't infinitely simpler and more scalable today. This isn't taken into account by the market and is therefore by definition not "bearish". That being said, I absolutely do not believe that the number of chains is a reliable metric. In my opinion (and in yours in a moment), it's more important to have higher revenues than a higher number of ICS chains. The importance of the negotiation between the HUB operators and the consumer chains is fundamental. Four chains that share 70% of their revenues with ATOM are much better than 40 chains that share 7% of their revenues with ATOM. The number of consumer chains is a parameter favorable to the narrative more than to ATOM stakers. I wouldn't go so far as to say that more chains is bearish, but it's not so wrong for equal shared revenue (less operational cost). -> Builders now have a handful of options to buy security from, including Eigenlayer, Karak, Symbiotic, and Babylon. How silly it can be to "buy security"? IMAGINE: You have your own validators, with your own token; you have certain revenue/inflation to increase the staked TVL to secure your network. And then you think you'd prefer to have other tokens staked instead of the native one on your network. Why would you think that? To increase the staked TVL and thus your security? No. Absolutely not. Why would there be more TVL with another token for the same revenue/inflation? Why would another token than the native one be more willing to be staked on this particular protocol? Why would there be an extra 100M$ staked if this token is called ETH? In fact, you're not buying security but diversifying the source of economic security on the same consensus. This raises the question of the nature of this token—does it imply the risk of a bridge, etc.—but let's move on. Let's delve into why diversify the source of capital to slash. - Either because we want to increase the neutrality of our chain with neutral capital to foster trust when interoperating with other chains. This implies a very liquid, decentralized token with a powerful but above all active social consensus (the famous intersubjectivity). - Or because there are interdependencies between two chains and increasing the shares of the pie with treasury investments in common interests. For the moment, neither of these points is accessible other than with ATOM (PSS + POL + Governance). Not to mention the fact that ATOM does not sell its economic security unlike all the products mentioned! ATOM doesn't offer "capital" but decentralized operators + block production (its consensus with instant finality) + its economic security. To put it simply, we'll try to compare EigenLayer with ICS the day PEPC is integrated (not tomorrow). I hope this little message will encourage you to watch the video, which answers everything else and more.

@RaoulGMI this is HUGE