The sovereignty trade-off is now explicit. Cosmos app-chains like dYdX and Osmosis historically paid for security with validator decentralization. ATOM 2.0's Interchain Security offers a turnkey alternative, but chains must forfeit a portion of their native token inflation to the Cosmos Hub.
the-appchain-thesis-cosmos-and-polkadot
Blog
Why ATOM 2.0's Liquid Staking Could Redefine Hub Economics
Liquid staking derivatives like stATOM are decoupling ATOM's economic utility from its security function, creating a critical design challenge for the Cosmos Hub's Interchain Security and validator ecosystem.
introduction
HUB ECONOMICS
The Looming Bifurcation
ATOM 2.0's Interchain Security and Liquid Staking will force a fundamental choice between sovereignty and capital efficiency for Cosmos app-chains.
Liquid staking creates a capital efficiency wedge. Hub-native liquid staking tokens (LSTs) like Stride's stATOM unlock yield-bearing collateral for DeFi across the Interchain. This concentrates economic gravity on the Hub, directly competing with the native token utility of consumer chains.
The bifurcation is a protocol design choice. Chains prioritizing maximum sovereignty will run their own validator sets, akin to Celestia's data availability model. Chains opting for capital efficiency will lease security from the Hub, mirroring the shared security vs. rollup debate between Ethereum and Arbitrum.
Evidence: Stride's stATOM already commands a $200M+ market cap, demonstrating latent demand for yield-bearing Interchain collateral. This dwarfs the TVL of most Cosmos app-chains, proving the economic pull of Hub-centric liquidity.
key-trends
HUB ECONOMICS AT A CROSSROADS
The Unavoidable Tension
ATOM 2.0's Interchain Security and Liquid Staking create a fundamental conflict between hub utility and token value capture.
01
The Staking Dilemma: Security vs. Liquidity
The Cosmos Hub's security depends on high ATOM staking ratios, but this locks capital and kills DeFi composability. Liquid staking tokens (LSTs) like Stride's stATOM solve liquidity but could cannibalize the hub's validator set.
- Problem: ~70% staking ratio creates a ~$2B+ illiquid pool.
- Tension: Every stATOM minted is ATOM not directly securing the hub.
~70%
Staked Ratio
$2B+
Illiquid TVL
02
Interchain Security: The New Revenue Model
Consumer chains rent security from the Cosmos Hub's validator set, paying fees in their native tokens. This turns ATOM stakers into venture capital investors, but only if the hub's stake remains high-quality and decentralized.
- Solution: Diversifies hub revenue beyond inflation.
- Risk: Liquid staking could centralize voting power, undermining the security product.
10+
Consumer Chains
New Yield
Revenue Stream
03
The Re-staking Endgame
The ultimate play is to make ATOM the preferred collateral asset across the Interchain. LSTs like stATOM can be re-staked as security for app-chains or used as money-market collateral, creating a flywheel.
- Vision: stATOM becomes the base money layer for IBC.
- Metric: Success is measured by stATOM's TVL vs. native ATOM DeFi TVL.
Flywheel
Economic Effect
Base Layer
Collateral Goal
deep-dive
THE TRADEOFF
Security vs. Liquidity: The Zero-Sum Game
ATOM 2.0's Interchain Security and Liquid Staking create a direct economic conflict between validator safety and capital efficiency.
Interchain Security consumes staked ATOM. The Replicated Security model requires validators to slash their ATOM stake to secure consumer chains. This locks capital into a single, non-productive security function, mirroring the capital inefficiency of early Ethereum staking before Lido and Rocket Pool.
Liquid staking unlocks that capital. Protocols like Stride and pSTAKE convert staked ATOM into liquid staking tokens (LSTs) like stATOM. These LSTs flow into DeFi yield strategies on Osmosis and other IBC-connected hubs, generating compounding returns separate from base staking rewards.
This creates a zero-sum pull. Every ATOM diverted into an LST for yield is an ATOM not directly securing the Hub or a consumer chain via slashing. The system's economic security budget is now split between slashing collateral and DeFi TVL.
Evidence: Cosmos Hub validators secure ~$2.5B in ATOM. A 30% LST adoption rate, similar to Ethereum's, would redirect ~$750M of slashing-eligible stake into yield farming, directly reducing the Hub's security subsidy for consumer chains.
LIQUID STAKING IMPACT
The Economic Leakage: ATOM vs. stATOM
Compares the economic flow and utility of native ATOM staking versus liquid staked stATOM, analyzing the impact on the Cosmos Hub's security budget and capital efficiency.
| Economic Feature | Native ATOM (Current Hub) | Liquid stATOM (ATOM 2.0 Vision) | Implication for Hub |
|---|---|---|---|
Capital Lockup Period | 21 days | 0 days (Instant) | Unlocks ~$2B+ in staked capital for DeFi |
Yield Source | Hub Inflation + Fees | Hub Inflation + Fees + External Yield (e.g., Osmosis, Kujira) | Yield extraction shifts to external chains |
Security Contribution | Direct to Hub validators | Indirect via derivative (relies on stATOM issuer's validator set) | Potential dilution of Hub validator incentives |
Protocol-Owned Liquidity | None | Enables Interchain Scheduler/Allocator treasury to bootstrap liquidity | Creates new, sustainable Hub revenue stream |
Fee Capture on Yield | 100% to staker/validator | ~5-10% fee to stATOM protocol (e.g., Stride, pSTAKE) | Economic leakage from Hub to liquid staking protocol |
Use in DeFi Collateral | Inefficient (locked) | Primary use case (Lending, LP, Margin) | Increases ATOM's utility and demand sink |
Hub Treasury Inflation Funding | Funded directly from new ATOM issuance | Requires stATOM adoption to fund via Interchain Allocator returns | Makes Hub budget dependent on external DeFi performance |
counter-argument
THE LIQUIDITY ENGINE
The Bull Case: A Reinforced Hub?
ATOM 2.0's native liquid staking transforms the Hub from a validator marketplace into a capital efficiency engine.
Liquid Staking is the Core: The Interchain Security (ICS) model requires bonded ATOM to secure consumer chains. Native liquid staking unlocks this capital, allowing staked ATOM to simultaneously secure the Hub, secure external chains via ICS, and provide liquidity in DeFi pools on Osmosis or leveraged via Mars Protocol.
Hub as a Yield Aggregator: The Hub's economic model shifts from simple inflation to a fee-sharing engine. Validators and stakers earn fees from all secured consumer chains, creating a diversified yield stream that competes with Ethereum's Lido/StakeWise ecosystem.
Counter-Intuitive Capital Flow: Unlike Polkadot's locked DOT for parachains, liquid staked ATOM creates a flywheel. Capital secured via ICS can be redeployed as collateral within the Cosmos ecosystem, increasing total value secured (TVS) without new capital inflow.
Evidence: The success of Stride's liquid staked ATOM (stATOM) demonstrates latent demand, with over $50M TVL. ATOM 2.0 embeds this functionality natively, capturing the value and governance currently ceded to external protocols.
risk-analysis
WHY ATOM 2.0'S LIQUID STAKING COULD REDEFINE HUB ECONOMICS
Failure Modes & Bear Cases
ATOM 2.0's Interchain Security and Liquid Staking pivot is a high-stakes bet to solve the Hub's value capture problem, but introduces new systemic risks.
01
The Liquidity-Security Death Spiral
Mass adoption of liquid staked ATOM (stATOM) could drain native staking pools, weakening the Hub's underlying security budget.\n- Critical Threshold: If >40% of ATOM is liquid staked, validator revenue from native staking plummets.\n- Cascading Effect: Lower yields reduce native staking, making 51% attacks cheaper and undermining Interchain Security for chains like Neutron.
>40%
Danger Zone
-70%
Validator Fee Drop
02
The Rehypothecation Black Hole
Liquid staking derivatives (LSDs) like stATOM become collateral in DeFi, creating layered leverage that magnifies systemic risk.\n- Contagion Vector: A major protocol failure (e.g., a money market like Mars Protocol) could force mass stATOM liquidation.\n- Validator Slashing Amplifier: Liquid stakers panic-selling could trigger a feedback loop, decoupling stATOM from ATOM and causing bank runs on LSD providers.
3-5x
Leverage Multiplier
$1B+
TVL at Risk
03
Interchain Security's Fee Dilemma
Consumer chains pay for security in their own tokens, not ATOM. Liquid staking does not solve the Hub's lack of sustainable, exogenous fee revenue.\n- Revenue Mismatch: Validators earn inflationary ATOM rewards + consumer chain tokens, but the Hub's treasury gets neither.\n- Bear Case Reality: In a downturn, consumer chain token fees could become worthless, leaving the Hub subsidizing security for ghost chains.
0%
Hub Fee Share
High Risk
Token Quality
04
The Lido-ification of Cosmos
A single LSD provider (e.g., Stride, pSTAKE) could achieve dominant market share, centralizing economic and governance power.\n- Validator Centralization: The leading LSD protocol dictates which validators secure its pool, creating a new power center.\n- Governance Attack: The LSD entity could vote its derivative tokens, effectively controlling ATOM governance without owning the underlying asset.
>33%
Governance Threshold
Oligopoly
Market Structure
future-outlook
THE ECONOMIC FLIP
The Path Forward: From Security Tax to Security Service
ATOM 2.0's Interchain Security and Liquid Staking transform a cost center into a revenue-generating core business.
The hub becomes a service provider. Interchain Security (ICS) commoditizes the Cosmos Hub's validator set, allowing consumer chains like Neutron and Stride to lease security instead of bootstrapping their own. This flips the ATOM token from a pure staking asset into a revenue-generating utility.
Liquid staking is the distribution layer. Protocols like Stride and Persistence enable ATOM stakers to mint stATOM, unlocking liquidity while securing the hub. This liquidity unlocks new utility, funneling staked capital into DeFi across the IBC ecosystem like Osmosis.
The security tax disappears. Under the old model, ATOM inflation was a pure cost. Under ICS, consumer chain fees flow back to ATOM stakers as direct protocol revenue, creating a sustainable flywheel where more secured chains increase the hub's value.
Evidence: The Neutron consumer chain, secured by the Cosmos Hub, already routes its MEV and transaction fee revenue back to ATOM stakers, demonstrating the viability of the security-as-a-service model.
takeaways
ATOM 2.0 LIQUID STAKING
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
The Interchain Stack's economic model is being rebuilt from the ground up, shifting from a simple inflation subsidy to a capital-efficient, fee-generating engine.
01
The Problem: Staked ATOM is a $20B+ Sunk Cost
~70% of ATOM supply is staked and illiquid, creating massive opportunity cost for validators and delegators. This capital can't be used for DeFi in the Cosmos ecosystem or as collateral in money markets like Mars Protocol, effectively capping the Hub's economic gravity.
~70%
Illiquid
$20B+
Locked Value
02
The Solution: Interchain Security as a Liquid Staking Primitive
ATOM 2.0 repositions the Hub as a shared security provider for consumer chains. Liquid staking tokens (e.g., Stride, Quicksilver) become the gateway: users stake ATOM, receive a liquid derivative, and the staked ATOM is automatically delegated to secure new chains, earning dual rewards from Hub inflation and chain fees.
- Capital Efficiency: Staked ATOM works twice.
- Fee Capture: Redirects value from app-chains back to the Hub.
2x
Yield Source
100+
Potential Chains
03
The New Economic Flywheel: From Subsidy to Revenue
The old model paid validors via inflation, diluting everyone. The new model uses Interchain Scheduler and Allocator modules to capture MEV and direct investment. Liquid staking fuels this by providing the bonded capital base.
- Scheduler: Auctions cross-chain block space, capturing MEV.
- Allocator: Invests treasury funds into ecosystem projects, paid in their tokens.
0%
Target Inflation
Fee-Based
New Model
04
The Risk: Rehypothecation and Systemic Fragility
Liquid staking introduces rehypothecation risk—the same ATOM capital could be leveraged across multiple DeFi venues (e.g., Osmosis pools, Kujira money markets). A cascading liquidation on a major protocol could force unstaking, threatening the security of all connected consumer chains in a cross-chain contagion event.
High
Systemic Risk
Cascading
Liquidation Risk
05
The Architectural Mandate: Build for the Liquid Hub
Protocols must now design for a Hub where the primary collateral is liquid staked ATOM (stATOM, qATOM), not native ATOM. This affects everything from oracle price feeds (Pyth, Band) to collateral factors in lending markets. Smart contracts must understand the staking derivative's peg and slashing risk.
stATOM
New Base Collateral
Slashing
Key Risk Param
06
The Competitor: Ethereum's Established LSDFi Stack
Cosmos is not first. Lido, Rocket Pool, and EigenLayer have defined the LSDFi playbook on Ethereum. ATOM 2.0 must compete by offering sovereign chain security as a unique product, not just higher yield. Success means attracting chains away from Ethereum rollups and Celestia-based rollups by offering a better security-for-fee deal.
$30B+
Ethereum LST TVL
Sovereignty
Cosmos Edge
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall