OIP-15: Proposal for a Stakecito Validator Loan from Onomy DAO

We can edit the prop to include a clause that states that if we shut down our node in less than 12 months, we would be required to return the self-bond.

This is a fantastic commitment for the DAO to see Stakecito’s long term intentions with Onomy’s DAO. I would appreciate adding this extra clarity in, although somewhat implied with the minimum 12 month bond.

Having Cito and team aligned with Onomy is a testament to upcoming ecosystem expansion, Stakecito is a strong Cosmos contributor and arguably the best Cosmos-related content creator out there from - both in terms of events to educational content. Cito has already facilitated an introduction for BizDev contributors working on liquidity levers for ONEX, too.

That said, I’d personally love to see at least a couple of specific commitments for the listed Educational Outreach section. These don’t have to be exact, but some ballpark example will be helpful as the grant ask is non-trivial.

  1. What does the detailed content and visual materials entail? What can the DAO expect to see?
  2. What content distribution methods will be used?



Thanks for all the input @Lalo! We intentionally left this section a little vague to allow for creativity and flexibility around given creativity.

We craft tons of different formats of content and are always experimenting, plus, truthfully speaking, we don’t have a rigid approach as to how given content is crafted - it depends on information we receive in real time as well as ideas.

I believe the information we provided in this proposal is sufficient to give an idea of the activities we would undertake, at the same time without constricting the team as to what they can do based on promises made.

The Cito ecosystem comprises 3 different brands: Cryptocito, Cito Zone (a research arm) and Stakecito (validator), with a total network of over 250,000 community members and about the same number of delegators within Cosmos, this number is much larger when considering our network in its entirety (we validate in several other ecosystems including Near Protocol).

We will be leveraging all 3 brands and their different channels as we see appropriate.

Love to hear this! He was very enthusiastic when he recommended to me that we should contribute to this ecosystem! :slight_smile:

Happy to add this to the proposal! Will do shortly :slight_smile:

Done! @Lalo :slight_smile:

Please let me know if you have any other questions, comments or concerns.


I support this idea, let’s go !


great replies to nomad questions, stakecito team. wen go on-chain? think its easy vote.

1 Like

Thanks for your response. I’d actually propose to frame it as a loan, rather as a grant. The loan would bare no interest and should only be repaid if/when Stakesito stops running Onomy validator. In my view, this structure would be much more aligned with the long-term interests of Onomy DAO, hence also with your interests (assuming your intention to become a long-term contributor is genuine), while providing exactly the same benefits to Stakesito (not having to fork $70K upfront, earning all the yield on the 250K NOM and obviously additional yield deriving from the commission on any NOM delegated to your validator). Assuming your validator will be competitive in the market - I’ll be happy to delegate at least the same amount of NOM as the DAO’s loan to your validator to help you bootstrap the revenue at the beginning.


I support @Wombat’s idea to make it a loan from the DAO with no interest and only repaid if/when Stakecito stops running a validator node for Onomy. To that end, I commit to matching the DAO’s minimum self-bond loan of 225K in delegation to Stakecito’s to boost its revenue. In fact, this path will create more revenue for Stakecito through committed delegations rather than only the minimum bond.

@Winfred Thank you for the information on Cryptocito, Cito Zone, and Stakecito. 250,000 community members is an army of future Nomads! What do you think of the adjustment to loan and delegation offer?


Interesting convo above on loan.

I think it further protects the DAO and could be a solid strategy to onboard other community validators - you essentially get the same yield on your validator as you would on a grant, then enhanced through the delegations offered by the community, while the DAO is more protected against any headwind or massive surge in NOM prices which could maybe be used to bootstrap a multi-protocol ecosystem with the current move to being a provider chain. Me likes and semi-wish we thought about this before oh well.


Thanks Lalo and Wombat - agree with and like the loan logic voiced there and added community support in delegations - so would pledge to add an equal 225k NOM amount alongside Lalo so the total would be 3x 225k for the stakecito node


Hey folks! Really appreciate all the input on making this proposal as fair as possible for all involved. While we’re onboard with the loan structure proposed, it does mark a departure from the grants given to our peers.

From our POV, the main difference between a loan structure vs. a grant would be incentive alignment. A grant approval would align our content strategy, marketing initiatives and general contributions more with Onomy compared to a loan. Plus, in either case of a grant or a loan, the tokens would be in a self-bond for as long as Stakecito were to remain in the validator set.

We could perhaps consider a hybrid solution in which we commit to a minimum duration and basic milestone achievements, after which the loaned tokens would become a grant (aka. non-refundable). A timeframe of 1 year seems adequate on our end.

But yeah, our interest in supporting the Onomy network remains steadfast and we also really appreciate the offers to match the self bond loan from @DeFi_NOMad and @Wombat. Happy to continue to move this conversation forward.

1 Like

Thanks a lot @Winfred, I appreciate your POV, but looking at what happened in the past typically doesn’t really age well in cryptoland… Onomy is moving forward, evolving and is constantly trying to improve, both on the technical/product aspects, as well as on the economical/treasury management aspects.
Personally, I think that giving grants to new validators is no longer a viable path for the DAO. We do however want to encourage more validators to participate in Onomy’s ecosystem, hence my suggestion for a loan, which will remove the financial barrier to enter and given the kind support of the fellow NOMads @Lalo & @DeFi_NOMad along with my own pledge, you’re looking at a minimum (including the prospective loan) of 900K NOM (~$423K at current price) to be delegated to your node and I’m pretty sure that a bunch of other community members would be happy to support you.
It’s also worth mentioning that the launch of ONEX is imminent and thanks to Onomy’s replicated security, the same validator would be able to validate both Onomy & ONEX chains, without additional hardware overhead, while generating additional yield.
OK, I think I’ve said enough here, definitely don’t want to force you into something you’re not comfortable with, but hope you’ve got the picture and will be able to make your own decision if/how to move forward.

1 Like

From a practical and rational point of view, you are absolutely right. But in this situation, I would rather support the provision of a grant than a loan. Now I will explain why.

Stakecito wants to be more than just a validator, right? They also undertake to take on the educational direction. Of course, if Stakecito (or any other validator) were to place an offer just to become Onomy’s validator, there is a good chance the DAO would reject such an offer. But Stakecito offers something more, just like Strangelove and Decentrio.

Onomy, which will have many products, will be a supply chain and wants to build an IFS, definitely needs a team that will educate people who have not heard of Onomy before.

In this situation, I am guided by the principle “what could go wrong?” What is the likelihood that Stakecito will cease to be Onomy’s validator if Onomy continues to evolve? As for me, the probability is almost zero. Therefore, I am in favor of providing a grant to Stakecito, giving them freedom of action, showing our commitment to their activities, thereby obtaining a mutual commitment to Onomy.

Onomy creates innovations, Stakecito will be able to teach how to use them. I may be looking through the lens that the Stakecito will be able to pay more attention to Onomy than usual, but I hope that will be the case because Onomy is amazing.


Thanks for you perspective @Stanislav, I can definitely understand where you’re coming from, but please allow me to challenge it a bit.
First, I think there’s no disagreement about the value add that Stakesito could bring to Onomy’s ecosystem.
At the same time, I haven’t seen any concrete plan of action, commitment to goals, milestones, timelines and most importantly - to outcomes. I did read @Winfred response to @Lalo questions, but to me, it doesn’t change the fact that none of them exist or explicitly stated in the proposal draft.
Second - let’s assume for a moment that the DAO decides to go with the loan structure that was proposed rather than with a grant. There’s nothing to prevent the DAO from approving another proposal later down the road, after seeing satisfactory outcomes from this partnership, to convert all/part of the loan into a grant and/or introduce some sort of vesting for it.

To summarise my proposal:

  1. It removes the economical entry barrier to becoming Onomy’s validator for Stakesito (or for other/future prospective validators) by lending 225K NOM to them.
  2. At the same time, it protects the Onomy DAO interests and creates a much more sustainable path going forward (as I’m pretty confident that Stakesito isn’t going to be the last validator to request to join our validators set).
  3. On the face of it, it seems that the loan path has a significant and tangible community support, where at least 3 significant community members have committed to augment the DAO’s loan with their own delegations to match the loan, explicitly “voting” with their wallets 225K NOM x 3 (worth over $300K atm).
  4. There’s always an option to amend the terms of the loan later on, based on the actual outcome and contribution to the DAO.

Thanks for the answer @Wombat. It definitely makes sense. If Stakecito really wants to be a validator of Onomy for the long term, then it doesn’t matter to him whether it’s a grant or a loan, since that amount will be locked anyway. Moreover, the loan will be even more profitable, since some participants have pledged to delegate part of their own tokens to support Stakecito, which will allow them to receive more commissions from the very beginning. Since the amount is not small and we do not know how large the educational campaign from Stakecito will be, issuing a loan with the subsequent possibility of turning into a grant seems like a good idea to me :upside_down_face:


Happy Thursday all!

First of all, I would like to say thank you for all the input, your support and constructive critiques have been instrumental in guiding our decisions.

After thorough consideration and reflection on the feedback from the community, we have concluded that pursuing a loan is the most advantageous route for all. Opting for a loan over a grant allows us the agility to adapt and respond to the evolving needs of our projects (I cannot over-emphasize the importance of flexibility for creatives), while also addressing concerns raised regarding treasury management.

Plus, the commitment demonstrated by several community members who have pledged to bond their tokens with us is incredibly motivating.

I really just want to emphasize now, more than at the time of authoring this proposal, that based on these conversations and the new direction this proposal is slated to take, that we will need to keep the scope of our educational initiatives flexible:

I will edit this proposal shortly to reflect that we are indeed requesting a loan. I may also add some verbiage around the scope of educational initiatives we had initially proposed.

Thanks again and hope you’re all having a wonderful week!


thanks for your input and well noted mate, at this late stage of the bootstrapping process for approved partner teams and /or value add biz dev validator teams our DAO should use loans going forward to self bond those teams that are approved partnerships ( I wonder if skip protocol would join our validator set with a loan and delegation pledges?) either way Onomy has a exceptional group thus far in the validator set so hats off to all the hard work by Lalo and other contributors to get so many great teams on board : )

  1. It removes the economical entry barrier to becoming Onomy’s validator for Stakesito (or for other/future prospective validators) by lending 225K NOM to them.

look forward to supporting the prop when complete and delegating to StakeCito on onomy : )
already stake with you on other chains hehehe and a big fan of the YT channel as well!

1 Like

let’s take it onchain, cito team! excited for this one…

Happy Sunday/Monday Friends!

I have edited the proposal to reflect the discussion in this thread.

Please let me know your thoughts on this revised version. If I left out anything, it’s probably unintentional so definitely lmk!


Updated Prop Looks good to me :+1: thanks again for your support and for showing long term commitment to the Onomy community : )

1 Like