Fidelity is building a Digital Asset Operating Platform for onchain finance. They are also hiring talent across EVM, Solana & Cosmos SDK. 2026 is shaping up as the year institutions shift from being onchain to operating onchain.

Map of The Highest Mountain Peak In Every European Country brilliantmaps.com/highest-mo…

the silver team needs to focus on UTILITY and address the community concerns down 5% and no response in the discord is unacceptable, where are the devs? this is a DISASTER the community is strong and behind the project, but we need PROGRESS

We understand why projects leave, and it's not the projects' fault @cosmoslabs_io is guilty for the exodus of projects from @CosmosEcosystem Over the course of its first year of existence, speaking on behalf of @cosmos, Cosmos Labs told a ton of projects that we now have social-darwinism, and the strongest will survive, and that other projects will receive no support from Cosmos Not only is this all nonsense, coz those who unite best will survive, as mutual aid is the most important factor in evolution. And so we see how weak humans, uniting with horses and dogs, have wiped out the strong mammoths from the evolutionary race The most important point is that Cosmos Labs is not the entire Cosmos Starting with the fact that Cosmos Labs' Voting Power is definitely less than @CosmostationVD, continuing with the fact that @interchain_io ICF failed to prevent the passage of a proposal about the community's lack of trust in ICF After this, ICF allocated 20 million from its funds and handed it over to Skip Protocol (which became Cosmos Labs) This raises two important points: 1) If the community doesn't trust ICF, then why do we trust Cosmos Labs (an ICF protégé)? Cosmos Labs is the same ICF, just from a different perspective 2) Cosmos Labs' Voting Power is even lower than ICF's, as ICF long ago lost most of its ATOMs, and as a result, they were unable to counter the proposal about ICF's lack of trust. And Cosmos Labs doesn't spend ICF funds on increasing its Voting Power. That is, Cosmos Labs cannot represent Cosmos' position; it can only speak for itself. The problem is that other projects believe Cosmos Labs is the "leader of Cosmos," and whatever @0xMagmar says is taken as the position of the entire Cosmos Hub No one would be against good leaders, but since the ICF declared Cosmos Labs the "leader of Cosmos," ATOM has been 3-4 times smaller The best thing Cosmos Labs has come up with is convincing institutions to launch private blockchains on the Cosmos SDK. And Cosmos Labs' role in this is to explain to institutions how to use the Cosmos SDK, which is, roughly speaking, created at the expense of ATOM holders (if anyone doesn't understand how this is connected, we can explain it) And there's nothing wrong with explaining to people how to launch blockchains on the Cosmos SDK. The Validator School @synctems has been doing this for three years... It's just not clear what benefit this will bring to ATOM holders... Cosmos Labs will gain fame and recognition, and maybe even get paid. But it won't be Cosmos Hub that gets paid, it will be Cosmos Labs! Even if Cosmos Hub gets paid, for it to be beneficial for ATOM holders, they'd have to pay a lot, and pay regularly Currently, a total of 272 million ATOMs are staked: So, if institutions pay $272 million for an explanation of how to launch a blockchain using the free, open-source Cosmos SDK, each ATOM holder will receive $1 for each ATOM they stake. But it's a one-time payment. And who would pay that kind of money for training that costs $300 per person, especially on a regular basis, is simply impossible to imagine In addition, hundreds of blockchains have already been launched on the Cosmos SDK, and among them are a ton of successful blockchains: @binance, @cronosapp, @injective, @noble_xyz - but this simply doesn't affect the price of ATOM And if any bank or payment system launches a blockchain on the Cosmos SDK, it won't affect the price of ATOM. Basically, the gist of the complaint is this: - ICF, which the community doesn't trust, declares that Cosmos Labs is now the "leader of Cosmos," and ICF is washing its hands of it. - Everyone hopes and expects Cosmos Labs (as true leaders) to lead Cosmos to a bright future. - If ICF was simply cutting budgets, but at least doing something useful, then Cosmos Labs only made things worse: they stopped EVM implementation, froze payments for ISC development, promoted separatism and social Darwinism, thereby triggering a wave of Cosmos project exits, and generally tarnished Cosmos's reputation. For conspiracy theorists: Cosmos Labs is @jaekwon project to get everyone to turn away from @cosmoshub and switch to @_atomone 😅 And it would be funny if it weren't so sad... While communicating with the ICF was nearly impossible - they simply ignored any requests that weren't in their best interests. They didn't take on the role of Cosmos's leaders, simply being "one of the foundations that helps development" While communicating with Jae Kwon and Atom One is easy, and they're very approachable, which draws attention to Atom One, communicating with Cosmos Labs is a pain We've yet to meet anyone who said they enjoyed communicating with Cosmos Labs Everyone I spoke with said that communicating with Cosmos Labs is difficult, that they're aggressive, and that they act arrogant We can confirm: Cosmos Labs has surprisingly low soft skills. All our attempts to make friendship and develop Cosmos together were met with callous negativity It feels like these people don't understand friendship, cooperation, or mutual assistance... They're not responsible. It's best not to take their word for it; they don't keep it What can we take away from this? 1) Stop thinking that Cosmos is crap just because Cosmos Labs claims to be a leader. Cosmos ≠ Cosmos Labs If you don't like Cosmos Labs, that doesn't mean Cosmos is crap And the fact that you don't like Cosmos Labs is a completely natural reaction of a healthy person; you're not alone; almost everyone feels the same way. The only people who won't tell you Cosmos Labs is crap are the people who receive funds directly from Cosmos Labs, and there aren't many of them 2) Stop believing that Cosmos Labs are some kind of leaders who want to make Cosmos Hub better Cosmos Labs' opinion ≠ Cosmos' opinion. They don't take any actions in the interests of Cosmos Hub or ATOM holders They pursue the interests of their small, centralized group, and what they say on behalf of Cosmos is a ridiculous mistake. 3) Stop thinking that Cosmos is unsaveable. Cosmos has every chance of success if we stop believing in the previous two points and take on the development of Cosmos, ignoring the existence of Cosmos Labs. Or at least delegate this responsibility to those who want to develop Cosmos This is our vision of how we can resurect Cosmos, and we will be pleased for a feedback: dorian-carriage-980.notion.s…