Cosmos | Disclosures | Blockworks Intel

02Known Project Team

Question

For each existing entity: Labs/DevCo (e.g., Founder, CEO, CTO, COO), Foundation (e.g., President, Executive Director, CFO, COO), and DAO / onchain governance leadership (if applicable) list the:

(a) full names,
(b) official titles,
(c) and prior experience of key team members.

For any non-existent entity, explicitly mention it does not exist. External links may be included but they will not factor into the score.

Response

Labs / DevCo

Full Name	Official Title	Prior Experience
Barry Plunkett Interchain Foundation - About	Co-CEO of Cosmos Labs. Interchain Foundation - About	Prior to joining Cosmos Labs, Barry Plunkett studied computer science and economics at the University of Pennsylvania. After graduating, he built AI agents to negotiate in online marketplaces and published award-winning research. He joined D. E. Shaw in NYC as the first member of their venture studio, where he helped to spin out several businesses in fintech and developer tools. After leaving D. E. Shaw, he founded Skip, a multi-product developer tools business serving blockchain developers, which was acquired by the Interchain Foundation to form Cosmos Labs. Barry’s Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/barry-plunkett-aa0007134/?isSelfProfile=false
Matthew Matuszak Interchain Foundation - About	Head of Operations of Cosmos Labs. Interchain Foundation - About	Chief of Staff at the Interchain Foundation before being at CL. Matthew’s Linkedin: http://linkedin.com/in/matthew-matuszak/
Maghnus Mareneck Interchain Foundation - About	Co-CEO of Cosmos Labs. Interchain Foundation - About	Before Cosmos Labs, Maghnus co-founded two startups (Cent.co, one of the first NFT marketplaces, and Skip, a blockchain infrastructure company), worked in distressed debt at Arena Investors and macroeconomic modeling at Bridgewater Associates, and spent two years as an APM at Atlassian. Mag’s Linkedin: http://linkedin.com/in/maghnusmareneck
Nico Poggi Interchain Foundation - About	Chief Marketing Officer of Cosmos Labs. Interchain Foundation - About	Before his time at Cosmos, Nicolás Poggi served as an executive and leader in privacy, security, and blockchain companies for the last decade. He has worked at Prey, a device security and management software firm serving government agencies and faculties alike, and blockchain institutions such as NEAR, and Fleek, with both developer-facing and business-facing products in the categories of infrastructure and finance. Nico’s linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolas-poggi/?isSelfProfile=false
Una “Grace” Yu	Managing Director of Cosmos Labs Korea	I began my career in public service with the US government, then transitioned to consulting for multinational companies with a focus on the APAC region, particularly Japan and Korea. Seven years ago, I entered the Cosmos ecosystem as a consultant for All in Bits, one of the founding organizations of the Cosmos Network.Grace’s Linkedin: http://linkedin.com/in/grace-yu-4b43a7396
Yongjoo Jung	Head of Engineering at Cosmos Labs Korea	Yongjoo is a senior software engineer with nearly ten years building infrastructure in the Cosmos ecosystem, formerly head of engineering at Cosmostation (Crypto wallet) and Stamper. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yongjoojung/?isSelfProfile=false

Foundation

Full Name	Official Title	Prior Experience
Josh Cincinnati	Vice President of the Interchain Foundation Foundation Council.	The Interchain Foundation says Josh Cincinnati is an advisor, investor, board member, and privacy advocate in crypto, advises the Sia Foundation, Twilight Protocol, and Penumbra Protocol, sits on the Mina Foundation board, and previously served as founding Executive Director of the Zcash Foundation. https://medium.com/the-interchain-foundation/welcoming-new-minds-expanding-the-foundation-council-dc938021dcbd
Ryan Pripstein	Member of the, Interchain Foundation Foundation Council	Partner at Anagram, a digital asset holding company, venture fund, and incubator. Previously, Ryan served as the investment team’s Head of Research at Thrive Capital, early backers of companies like Stripe, Twitch, and OpenAI.
Dr Radisav Cojbasic	Member of the Interchain Foundation Foundation Council	Former co-founder and CEO of Irreducible, a zero-knowledge cryptography company, with experience spanning crypto infrastructure, high-frequency trading, and AI-driven quantitative systems.

DAO / Onchain Governance

Full Name	Official Title	Prior Experience
The project is a working DAO, each token holder has voting rights. However, no governance leadership exists. There is no individual or entity that leads governance	No governance leadership exists. There is no individual or title to add

03DAO Structure

Question

Provide a structured description of the DAO's governance, powers, and economic rights. If a DAO does not exist, state so for each sub question. Even if there is no DAO, there must be an answer to (d). Address the lettered items below.

(a) IP ownership & control — State what IP the DAO owns or controls (e.g., codebases/repos, trademarks/brands). Note any license if relevant.
(b) Contract/admin powers — List on-chain or administrative authorities and limits: pause/upgrade roles (e.g., multisig pause), governance-executor authorities, and the method of authority for each (e.g., veto, majority, super-majority).
(c) Locked-token rights (conditional) — If locking/staking for additional rights exists, explain the additional rights and what tokenholders can and cannot decide. If no locking mechanism exists, leave absent.
(d) Current tokenholder governance rights and economic arrangements — If any, describe the current governance rights of tokenholders and any presently operative rights or arrangements relating to treasury actions, fee-routing, rewards, buybacks, or other protocol-controlled resources. If none, state that explicitly.
(e) Control surface reliance — If any, briefly describe the anticipated or possible evolution of the protocol's governance/control model.
(f) Dissolution authority — State who can dissolve/wind up the DAO and by what mechanism (e.g., on-chain vote threshold, board resolution of a legal wrapper).

Response

(a) IP ownership & control

The DAO does not own or control any intellectual property. The Interchain Foundation creates, owns, and manages relevant trademarks, including COSMOS, COSMOS ATOM, and ATOM. Interchain Foundation - Trademark

(b) Contract/admin powers

There are no pause roles, upgrade multisigs, or other administrative authorities capable of acting unilaterally outside of on-chain governance. Governance is itself the executor of approved actions: parameter changes, software upgrades, and community-pool spends take effect automatically on-chain upon successful completion of the voting period, without any separate governance-executor role holding independent authority. The method of authority for all such actions is the on-chain governance vote described above (40% quorum, 50% pass threshold, 33.40% veto threshold). On-Chain Proposal Process Parameter Changes Community Pool Spend

(c) Locked-token rights (conditional)

Only staked ATOM has voting power; unstaked (liquid) ATOM cannot vote. Stake delegated to a validator that is jailed, tombstoned, or outside the active set when the voting period ends is not counted. Separately, the Liquid Staking Module (LSM) governs liquid-staked ATOM through governance-controlled parameters and validator-bond requirements, and staked ATOM does count, voting with the validator.

Through staked voting power, tokenholders can approve, reject, or veto governance proposals across all five Cosmos Hub proposal types: parameter changes, software upgrades, community-pool spend, IBC client updates, and text/signaling proposals. This includes the ability to vote to change the size of the active validator set (e.g., the MaxValidators staking parameter) via a parameter-change proposal. Staked tokenholders do not have authority to mint or burn ATOM outside the automated x/mint inflation mechanism, cannot directly select or remove specific validators outside ordinary delegation/staking mechanics (validator ranking is determined by stake-weighted bonding, not direct governance action),
Cosmos Whitepaper Delegator FAQ Validator FAQ On-Chain Proposal Process

(d) Current tokenholder governance rights and economic arrangements

Tokenholders can presently vote to approve, reject, or veto governance proposals covering parameter changes, software upgrades, community-pool spend, IBC client updates, and text/signaling proposals (see 3b/3c above). Through staking, tokenholders presently receive staking rewards consisting of a share of newly-issued ATOM (via the x/mint inflation mechanism) in each case net of the community tax and net of validator commission. Tokenholders can also direct allocation of community-pool funds via successful governance proposals for example, Proposal #839, which directed ATOM-denominated development funding, required return of unused buffer and unearned bonuses to the community pool, and imposed oversight/suspension mechanics through governance-linked processes. There is no other presently operative right known to us for tokenholders to claim, receive, or direct protocol-controlled resources beyond staking rewards and governance-directed community-pool spend Delegator FAQ Validator FAQ Community Pool Spend Proposal #839

(e) Control surface reliance

There is no anticipated evolution in the protocol's governance/control model

(f) Dissolution authority

There is no mechanism to dissolve or wind up the Cosmos Hub. The only related mechanism is at the sub-DAO level: sub-DAOs appointed by governance can elect to make their own treasury subject to revocation by Hub governance, by granting the Hub's governance module admin rights over the sub-DAO via DAODAO https://daodao.zone/dao/neutron1lefyfl55ntp7j58k8wy7x3yq9dngsj73s5syrreq55hu4xst660s5p2jtj/proposals/A6

04Primary Foundation

Question

For the Primary Foundation do the following independently. If a Foundation does not exist, state so for each sub question. Items (a)–(f) apply only if that entity exists; state explicitly that the entity doesn't exist.

Definition: The primary Foundation can be explained as the entity which was directly/indirectly involved in the issuance of the native token at launch. If the original Foundation has been dissolved and in its place a "new Foundation" was created, then detail the "new Foundation".

(a) Entity — Type and jurisdiction.
(b) IP ownership & control — What IP the entity owns/controls (repos/code, trademarks/brand; license optional)
(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration — If any, describe the current powers over DAO governance, treasury actions, protocol-controlled resources (e.g. revenue), token administration, or reward parameters, and the method/threshold for each.
(d) Powers over DevCo — Explain whether the foundation can exert direct or indirect influence over decision-making of the DevCo.
(e) Contract/admin powers — Pause/upgrade/governance-executor authorities, and the method/threshold for each (e.g., veto/majority/super-majority).
(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies — Describe any current governance-approved, contractual, or programmatic mechanisms, if any, by which protocol-controlled resources, treasury assets, fees, revenue, rewards, or token distributions may be directed to this entity, its equityholders, contributors, or other participants. If no such mechanism currently exists, state that explicitly.

Response

(a) Entity

The Interchain Foundation is a non-profit Swiss Foundation. Address: Gartenstrasse 4, CH-6300 Zug, Switzerland, commercial registration number CHE-199.569.367. Cosmos Plan Interchain Foundation - About Interchain Foundation - Imprint

(b) IP ownership & control

The Interchain Foundation holds trademarks for the Cosmos ecosystem, Cosmos Stack, and the Cosmos Network, including COSMOS ATOM and ATOM. Interchain Foundation has three wholly-owned subsidiaries, Cosmos Labs New York, Berlin & Korea. Interchain Foundation - Trademark Interchain Foundation - Careers

(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration

Neither the DevCo nor the Interchain Foundation has power over protocol-controlled resources or the on-chain DAO treasury (the community pool), which are governed solely by ATOM holders. The Interchain Foundation maintains its own independent treasury, separate from protocol funds, which it uses to fund public goods and ecosystem development. About Cosmos Interchain Foundation - The Interchain Ecosystem Community Pool Spend

(d) Powers over DevCo

Cosmos Labs is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Interchain Foundation and its mandate covers products, engineering, marketing, growth initiatives, and maintenance of the Cosmos Hub blockchain and the Cosmos SDK, while Cosmos Labs governance, treasury, and Foundation updates come from the Interchain Foundation. Cosmos Labs and the ICF have no power over protocol-controlled resources or funds. The ICF has its own independent treasury with which it funds public goods. The Interchain Foundation approves the budget and strategic direction of Cosmos Labs. Interchain Foundation - The Interchain Ecosystem About Cosmos Introducing Cosmos Labs

(e) Contract/admin powers

Interchain Foundation has no control over any DAO-related contracts.

(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies

The Interchain Foundation funds public-goods and Cosmos-stack development through its treasury and has no control over protocol funds. ICF publishes monthly treasury snapshots. Through its delegation program, the ICF delegates stake to support high-performing validators and to strategically empower partners who help grow the Cosmos Hub and broader ecosystem. About Cosmos Interchain Foundation - The Interchain Ecosystem ICF Treasury ICF Delegation Program ICF Delegation Program

05Primary DevCo

Question

For the Primary DevCo do the following independently. If an entity does not exist, state that explicitly across each sub-question. Items (a)–(f) apply only if that entity exists; state explicitly that the entity doesn't exist.

Definition: The primary DevCo can be explained as the entity which was directly/indirectly involved in the issuance of the native token at launch. If the original DevCo has been dissolved and in its place a "new DevCo" was created, then detail the "new DevCo".

(a) Entity — Type and jurisdiction.
(b) IP ownership & control — What IP the entity owns/controls (repos/code, trademarks/brand; license optional)
(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration — If any, describe the current powers over DAO governance, treasury actions, protocol-controlled resources (e.g. revenue), token administration, or reward parameters, and the method/threshold for each.
(d) Powers over Foundation — Explain whether the DevCo can exert direct or indirect influence over decision-making of the Foundation.
(e) Contract/admin powers — Pause/upgrade/governance-executor authorities and the method/threshold for each (e.g., veto/majority/super-majority; "3/5 multisig").
(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies — Describe any current governance-approved, contractual, or programmatic mechanisms, if any, by which protocol-controlled resources, treasury assets, fees, revenue, rewards, or token distributions may be directed to this entity, its equityholders, contributors, or other participants. If no such mechanism currently exists, state that explicitly. Do not discuss hypothetical future dividends, repurchases, or distributions unless formally adopted.

Response

(a) Entity

Cosmos Labs US Inc., a Delaware C-corporation, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Interchain Foundation.

(b) IP ownership & control

IP ownership related to the Cosmos SDK, the Cosmos Hub, and ATOM sit with the ICF. Cosmos Labs does not own or control any IP related to these technologies.

(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration

Cosmos Labs holds no powers over DAO governance (it cannot veto or otherwise direct on-chain ATOM governance outcomes), treasury actions (it cannot direct or veto community-pool spend), protocol-controlled resources such as revenue (no claim on or control over protocol fee revenue, staking rewards, or inflation proceeds), token administration (no ATOM minting, burning, or freezing authority), or reward parameters (no ability to set or change staking/inflation parameters). All such powers sit entirely with on-chain ATOM governance

(d) Powers over Foundation

Cosmos Labs cannot exert any direct nor indirect control/influence over the ICF’s decision making process. Cosmos Labs maintains a regular interface with the Interchain Foundation regarding its roadmap and provides recommendations as to its own strategic direction, but ICF retains decision making authority.

(e) Contract/admin powers

Cosmos Labs holds no pause, upgrade or governance-executor authority over the Cosmos Hub protocol or the ATOM token. Those powers sit entirely with on-chain ATOM governance.

Cosmos Labs operates two sets of public-goods infrastructure used by the Cosmos Hub: IBC Eureka (the Ethereum side of IBC v2) and Skip:Go. Its admin authority differs sharply between the two. On IBC Eureka, upgrade, client-migration and pause-release powers sit with a seven-member Security Council behind a timelock, in which Cosmos Labs holds one seat; Cosmos Labs additionally holds one pause key and the operational parameter roles. On Skip:Go, Cosmos Labs holds sole upgrade authority through a single key. The authority matrix covers every pause, upgrade and governance-executor power for each system, with the controlling party and the exact method or threshold. On-chain state was read on 2026-10-21 from the linked contracts. Where a power does not exist, the matrix says so.

1. IBC Eureka (Ethereum mainnet)

All Eureka contracts delegate access control to a single OpenZeppelin AccessManager at 0x3fa3f45ace1645614c80679aeece0a82a93c77ec. Every role grant and every function-to-role mapping is recorded on that contract.

Two multisigs. The Eureka Security Council is a Gnosis Safe at 0x7B96CD54aA750EF83ca90eA487e0bA321707559a with seven signers drawn from Wildcat Finance, Informal, Hypha, ZK Validator, Chorus One, Keplr and Cosmos Labs; Cosmos Labs holds one of the seven seats and cannot reach the 4-of-7 threshold on its own. The Eureka Ops Council is a Gnosis Safe at 0x4b46ea82D80825CA5640301f47C035942e6D9A46 whose five signers are all Cosmos Labs staff.

Roles on the AccessManager

ADMIN_ROLE (id 0): upgrade all Eureka contracts, migrate light clients, grant and revoke every other role. Holder: TimelockController 0xb3999b2d30dd8c9faece5a8a503fae42b8b1b614. Method: the Security Council Safe is the timelock's sole proposer, executor and canceller at 4-of-7; minimum delay 3 days (259,200 seconds); the timelock is its own admin. The deployer address was granted ADMIN_ROLE at deployment and revoked in the same transaction. Cosmos Labs: one of seven seats; cannot upgrade a contract or migrate a light client without three other council members and the 3-day delay.
PAUSER_ROLE (id 2): pause ICS20 Transfer and ICS27 GMP. Holders: five individual signing keys, four Security Council signers (0x9d91…c135d, 0xcb5d…08d4d, 0x64ac…17740a, 0x00a8…24ed7) and one Cosmos Labs operations key (0x2fed…01ad2). Method: any one of the five keys can pause, no delay, no co-signature. Cosmos Labs: can pause transfers unilaterally through its operations key; cannot unpause.
UNPAUSER_ROLE (id 3): unpause ICS20 Transfer and ICS27 GMP. Holder: the Security Council Safe. Method: 4-of-7, no delay. Cosmos Labs: one of seven seats; cannot unpause alone.
RELAYER_ROLE (id 1): submit recvPacket, ackPacket, timeoutPacket and updateClient. Holders: four relayer addresses operated by Cosmos Labs. Method: direct call. This role cannot change contract state beyond relaying IBC packets and client updates.
ID_CUSTOMIZER_ROLE (id 6), ERC20_CUSTOMIZER_ROLE (id 7) and RATE_LIMITER_ROLE (id 5): register IBC apps and clients under custom ids, set a custom ERC20 for a denom, set per-token withdrawal rate limits on escrows. Holder: the Ops Council Safe. Method: 2-of-5, no delay. Cosmos Labs: this is the full extent of its standalone admin authority on Eureka; these roles cannot pause, upgrade or move funds.
Governance-executor, Ethereum side: none. No governance executor exists on the Ethereum side. The govAdmin mechanism that would let Cosmos Hub governance control these contracts over IBC is specified in the ibc-contracts repository but not deployed. Until it is, the Security Council (through the timelock) is the sole administrator.

Powers by contract

ICS26 Router (proxy) 0x3aF134307D5Ee90faa2ba9Cdba14ba66414CF1A7. Pause: no pause function. Upgrade: ADMIN_ROLE via upgradeToAndCall, so Security Council 4-of-7 then the 3-day timelock. UUPS proxy; current implementation 0x17fa3a98d0239a399927c7c3ccde142e08deb7b5. Light client migration is also ADMIN_ROLE.
ICS20 Transfer (proxy) 0xa348cfe719b63151f228e3c30eb424ba5a983012. Pause: PAUSER_ROLE, any one of five keys. Unpause: UNPAUSER_ROLE, Security Council 4-of-7. Upgrade: ADMIN_ROLE via upgradeToAndCall, plus upgradeEscrowTo and upgradeIBCERC20To, which upgrade every Escrow and IBCERC20 beacon proxy at once. Not paused as of 2026-10-21.
ICS27 GMP (proxy) 0xbebd14a66052d7dc6bdc05e7328e4fec0a9e3b0e. Pause and unpause: same roles as ICS20 Transfer. Upgrade: ADMIN_ROLE via upgradeToAndCall. Not paused as of 2026-10-21.
Escrow beacon proxies, one per client, for example cosmoshub-0 at 0x0fa75c2c49d7db7ed62c5fb70bf78ba614ae6a89. Pause: no pause function of their own; outflows stop when ICS20 Transfer is paused. Upgrade: ADMIN_ROLE through ICS20 Transfer upgradeEscrowTo. Per-token withdrawal rate limits set by the Ops Council 2-of-5 under RATE_LIMITER_ROLE.
Light clients cosmoshub-0, ledger-mainnet-1 and client-4. Pause: no pause function; a client can freeze itself on misbehaviour. Upgrade: no owner or upgrade function on the client contracts; replacement of a frozen client happens through the router's migrateClient under ADMIN_ROLE. Relayers update clients under RELAYER_ROLE.

2. Skip:Go contracts

All Skip:Go EVM contracts are UUPS upgradeable proxies whose owner is a single externally owned account, 0x24a9267ce9e0a8f4467b584fdda12baf1df772b5, controlled by Cosmos Labs. Every admin action on these contracts is a single-signature transaction from that key; there is no multisig, timelock or governance step.

Skip Go Fast, EVM: Ethereum, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Base, Optimism, Polygon. Pause: none, no pause function exists. Upgrade: owner, single key, upgradeToAndCall. Other admin powers: owner can set the fast transfer gateway and swap router addresses. Governance-executor: none.
Skip Go Fast, Osmosis: osmo1vy34lpt5zlj797w7zqdta3qfq834kapx88qtgudy7jgljztj567s73ny82. Pause: none. Upgrade: the CosmWasm admin is a single-key Cosmos Labs account, osmo1zhqrfu9w3sugwykef3rq8t0vlxkz72vwd63q67, which can migrate the contract to new code. Other admin powers: config changes by the same key. Governance-executor: none.
Skip Go swap contracts (Axelar): Ethereum, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Base, BNB Smart Chain, Blast, Celo, Filecoin, Linea, Optimism, Polygon. Pause: none, no pause function exists. Upgrade: owner, single key, upgradeTo and upgradeToAndCall. Other admin powers: owner can set the swap router address and transfer ownership (two-step). Governance-executor: none.

3. Summary of Cosmos Labs' position

Pause: No Skip:Go contract has a pause function. On Eureka, Cosmos Labs can pause ICS20 Transfer and ICS27 GMP unilaterally through one operations key that holds PAUSER_ROLE; four Security Council signers hold the same power. Unpausing requires the Security Council at 4-of-7, where Cosmos Labs holds one seat.

Upgrade: Cosmos Labs cannot upgrade a Eureka contract or migrate a light client on its own; upgrades require the Security Council at 4-of-7 (Cosmos Labs one seat) followed by a 3-day timelock. Skip:Go EVM contracts and the Osmosis Go Fast contract are upgradeable by a single Cosmos Labs key with no delay. The Cosmos entry-point contracts are immutable.

Governance-executor: Cosmos Labs holds no governance-executor authority on its own. It holds one of seven seats on the Hub-side Eureka Security Council, which can store and migrate 08-wasm light client code on the Cosmos Hub under an AuthZ grant from the governance module, at a 4-of-7 threshold. No executor exists for Cosmos Hub governance over the Ethereum contracts.

Operational parameters: through the Ops Council (2-of-5, Cosmos Labs staff), Cosmos Labs can set per-token withdrawal rate limits on Eureka escrows and register custom client, port and ERC20 mappings. These powers cannot pause, upgrade or move funds.

(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies

Cosmos Labs is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Interchain Foundation responsible for the development, maintenance, and commercialization of the Cosmos technology stack, including support for the Cosmos Hub and ATOM. Its powers are operational and developmental in nature, including product strategy, engineering, maintenance, and ecosystem support. Cosmos Labs does not control Cosmos Hub governance, treasury assets, or other resources governed through on-chain governance processes. It has none of the economic arrangements or distribution policies described in the instructions.

06Affiliated Protocol Contributor

Question

Definition (for this section): An Affiliated Protocol Contributor (APC) is a non-issuer company - not the protocol's primary Foundation or DevCo - that materially contributes to the protocol's code, operations, governance, or funding. For example, Blockworks Advisory would be considered an APC of Ethena because it materially contributes to its operations through Ethena's risk council.

Provide a structured description per APC. If no APCs exist, state that explicitly across each sub-question. Items below apply per APC.

(a) Identity & role — Legal name, entity type, jurisdiction, and role (e.g., core development, security, infrastructure, market making, operations).
(b) Parameter control & scope — For each existing APC, if any, what major protocol parameters the APC controls; include the method of authority (e.g., veto, majority, super-majority). If none, say so.
(c) Contract/admin powers — For each existing APC, if any, provide the pause/upgrade powers (e.g., multisig pause), governance-executor authorities and limitations; include the method of authority for each (e.g. veto, majority, super-majority). If none, say so.
(d) Compensation and material economic arrangements — For each existing APC, if protocol-generated resources or economic value is dynamically routed to the APC, describe the arrangement. If applicable, include the resource sources, routing mechanism, payment frequency, and duration. If no protocol resources or resources-linked economics are routed to the APC, state that explicitly.

Response

(a) Identity & role

No APCs exist for Cosmos as of September 22nd 2026

(b) Parameter control & scope

No Affiliated Protocol Contributors exist for Cosmos as of September 22, 2026. Accordingly, there are no major protocol parameters controlled by any APC, and no applicable method of authority (e.g., veto, majority, super-majority) to disclose.

(c) Contract/admin powers

No Affiliated Protocol Contributors exist for Cosmos as of September 22, 2026. Accordingly, no APC holds pause powers, upgrade powers, governance-executor authorities, or other contract/administrative powers, and there are no applicable limitations or authority thresholds

(d) Compensation and material economic arrangements

No Affiliated Protocol Contributors exist for Cosmos as of September 22, 2026. Accordingly, no protocol-generated resources or economic value are dynamically routed to any APC, and there are no applicable resource sources, routing mechanisms, payment frequencies, or durations to disclose.

Token Supply & Allocation

07Initial Allocation

Response

Ticker	Date	Allocation Category Name	Recipient Type	Allocation %	Allocation Tokens	TGE Unlock %	TGE Unlock Tokens	Cliff Months	Cliff Unlock %	Linear Vesting Months	Cadence Months	Circulating Treatment	Notes on what each category is used for	If applicable: Contract / Wallet address
ATOM	2019-03-13	Public fundraiser contributors	Public / Sale	0.6786334	160292500	1	160292500	0	0	0	1	No	Public fundraiser of 2017-04-06: 864 addresses contributed USD 16,029,305.06 in BTC and ETH at a recommended USD 0.10 per ATOM; 160,292,499.62 ATOM allocated at genesis (whole-ATOM rounding applied in this row), unrestricted and not subject to vesting. All ATOM transfers were disabled chain-wide from genesis (2019-03-13) until the cosmoshub-2 upgrade on 2019-04-22. Sources: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cosmos/mainnet/master/genesis/GENESIS.md ; https://github.com/cosmos/launch/blob/master/accounts/public/contributors.json ; https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cosmos/cosmos/master/PLAN.md

08Vesting Insider Tokens

Question

If there are no post-TGE token compensation plans, state explicitly they do not exist across each sub-question. If there are, explain each of (a)–(b) below.

(a) Post-TGE employee lock as % of total supply — State the current total amount of tokens locked attributable to post-TGE employees, expressed as a percentage of total supply.
(b) Typical post-TGE vesting schedule — Describe the standard vesting terms used for post-TGE grants, including: cliff length (or "no cliff"), vesting frequency (e.g., monthly/quarterly), and total duration.

Response

(b) Typical post-TGE vesting schedule

The standard employee and contributor vesting schedule for post-TGE grants is a 3-year vesting schedule with a 1-year cliff of 33% of the grant amount, followed by a 2-year quarterly linear vest of the balance.

09Disclosure of Token Advisory Billings

Question

Disclose current token-based compensation for external advisors and service providers (e.g., legal, marketing, technical, growth) funded from the on-chain treasury. Do not disclose individual payments to advisors receiving fiat-only compensation. If there are no advisors contracted in tokens then state across each sub-question that no token-based advisory compensation exists.

(a) Existence — Whether any such token-based payments or advisory commitments exist (or explicitly state that no token-based compensation for advisory commitments exist).
(b) Total token allocation — For all existing token-based advisors, disclose the total token allocation across all advisory services.
(c) Payer entity — For each existing token-based advisor, share the payer entity (e.g., Foundation, Labs/DevCo, DAO/treasury).
(d) Description of advisory/services — For each existing token-based advisor, provide a brief description of the advisory/services (e.g., "legal and regulatory advisory," "growth and BD support," "security advisory").

Response

(a) Existence

No token-based advisory compensation exists

(b) Total token allocation

No token-based advisory compensation exists

(c) Payer entity

No token-based advisory compensation exists

(d) Description of advisory/services

No token-based advisory compensation exists

10KOL Marketing Activities

Question

Disclose ongoing KOL/influencer relationships that partially or fully received tokens for payment. You do not need to disclose KOL/influencers that do not receive tokens for payment. If no KOL engagements exist, state for each sub-question that no KOL engagements exist.

(a) Existence & scope — State plainly whether KOLs receive tokens for payment.
(b) Usernames & roles — List usernames/handles (with platforms) for KOLs that received token-based compensation and describe the nature of their activities. Legal names are not required.
(c) Token allocation & vesting/locks — Provide the aggregate token amount across all such arrangements and summarize vesting, lock, or release terms.

Response

(a) Existence & scope

No KOL engagements exist between Cosmos Labs, Interchain Foundation, or any other DevCo / Foundation Entity and KOLs / Influencers. No KOLs / Influencers receive any tokens for payment and we do not pay for posts.

(b) Usernames & roles

See above. No KOL engagements exist between Cosmos Labs, Interchain Foundation, or any other DevCo / Foundation Entity and KOLs / Influencers. No KOLs / Influencers receive any tokens for payment and we do not pay for posts.

(c) Token allocation & vesting/locks

11Labelled Unissued & Operational Token Wallets

Question

For each wallet that holds Unissued Tokens or is essential to operations (e.g., foundation, operations, treasury, investor reserve), disclose:

(a) A category label explaining the wallet's primary function.
(b) chain the wallet is on.
(c) The unique address of the wallet.
(d) The mechanism of control (e.g., DAO, multisig).
(e) One verification link to a blockchain explorer.

Definition: Unissued Supply = tokens authorized by the contract but not yet issued to any party; where they sit (treasury or mint authority) does not change that they are unissued. For instance: if a token has a total supply cap of 1B, and 400M tokens have been issued to investors, the team, and users (whether vested or unlocked), then those 400M count as issued supply. The remaining 600M are authorized but unissued supply, even if they are already minted into a DAO treasury wallet.

Response

Title	Primary Function	Chain	Address	Control Mechanism	Explorer Link
Community Pool	Supports ecosystem development	Cosmos Hub	cosmos1jv65s3grqf6v6jl3dp4t6c9t9rk99cd88lyufl

Transactions & Market Structures

12Market Maker Agreements & Deals

Question

Projects must disclose all material terms of market-making arrangements that affect token liquidity. If the project has no agreements or deals with market makers, state that explicitly.

For each market maker, include in a table:

(a) Market maker's name — the market maker's name;
(b) Token allocation or loaned amount — the token allocation or loaned amount as a percentage of total supply;
(c) Duration/term of agreement — the duration/term of the agreement; and, where applicable,
(d) Name of agreement structure — label the financial vehicle being used in the agreement (i.e. loan, option/call, retainer model).

If no native tokens were loaned or allocated to market makers, state that explicitly; cash/fiat retainers or fees are not required for (b).

Response

Market Maker Name	Token Allocation Committed	Term Duration	Structure Name
There are no Market maker deals or agreements.

13Exchange Agreements & Deals

Question

Projects must disclose all material terms of centralized or decentralized exchange listings that affect token liquidity.

For each listing, include in a table:

(a) Exchange name / DEX pool — the exchange name (and, for DEX, the specific pool/pair);
(b) Token allocation for listing — the token allocation supplied or committed for listing as a percentage of total supply;
(c) Term Duration — the duration/term of any listing lockups, liquidity, or incentive programs; and, where applicable,
(d) Native-token listing fees — whether any listing fees were paid in native tokens, with amounts (tokens or % of supply), recipients, and any vesting or lock terms tied to the partnership.

If the project has no agreements or deals with CEX or DEX, state that explicitly; doing so earns full credit; cash/fiat fee amounts are not required for this item.

Response

Exchange Name	Token Allocation Committed	Term Duration	Native Token Listing Fees
Not applicable - there are no exchange deals	Not applicable - 0 tokens	not applicable - 0 years	not applicable - 0 fees

14Liquidity Deals and Market Activity

Question

If a category does not exist or is not applicable, make that clear in plain language.

(a) Token repurchases or secondary-market accumulations (if any) — Source of funds, treatment (burn, treasury retention, POL, redistribution, or other), policy controller (who can change the secondary-market accumulation strategy), and whether those tokens may be re-used, re-issued, or permanently removed from circulation.
(b) Protocol-owned liquidity (POL) (if any) — Where deployed, total token or dollar size across deployments, policy controller (who can change the POL strategy), and unwind/exit policy.
(c) Liquidity deals / purchased TVL (if any) — The total size across all deals, and where the capital participates - no counterparty names needed.
(d) Token-secured loans/lines (incl. against unissued tokens) (if any) — Principal, gross position size, collateral, counterparties, and unwind/exit policy.

Response

(a) Token repurchases or secondary-market accumulations (if any)

Cosmos Labs does not conduct token repurchases or secondary-market accumulations of ATOM. Not applicable.

(b) Protocol-owned liquidity (POL) (if any)

Hydro governance contract (Neutron): neutron1lefyfl55ntp7j58k8wy7x3yq9dngsj73s5syrreq55hu4xst660s5p2jtj

ATOM amount: 3.5M ATOM

Changeable via on-chain governance: Yes. Custody was granted via Hub governance (Prop 955); Hub governance can reclaim or clawback at any time via a new on-chain proposal.

(c) Liquidity deals / purchased TVL (if any)

There are no liquidity deals or purchased TVL arrangements. Not applicable.

(d) Token-secured loans/lines (incl. against unissued tokens) (if any)

There are no token secured loans or lines of credit, including against unissued tokens. Not applicable

Resource Disclosures

15Prior Token Sales & Fundraising

Question

Disclose all prior token sales by the Project — including fundraising rounds, any material OTC sales to investors, and any discounted market-maker sales.

For each sale, provide:

(a) Series Name;
(b) Early-Stage Investment Instrument used (i.e. SAFT, STAMP, SAFE, SAFE+Token Warrant, etc.);
(c) Date of sale (at least month & year);
(d) Number of tokens sold (or % of total supply);
(e) Vesting schedule.

If no prior sales occurred, state that explicitly (e.g., "No prior fundraising, OTC, or discounted MM sales have occurred.").

Response

Series Name	Investment Instrument	Date Of Sale	Number of tokens sold	Vesting Schedule
initial donors, pre-fundraiser private offering	Private contribution agreements under the Interchain Cosmos Contribution Terms, no SAFT, SAFE or token warrant.	Before April 2017 (offering preceded the April 6, 2017 public fundraiser).	11,809,947.91 ATOM, 5.000% of genesis supply, delivered as the recommended genesis allocation on March 13, 2019.	None. Unrestricted at genesis; no cliff or vesting.
Strategic and early contributors (pre-fundraiser private offering)	Private contribution agreements under the Interchain Cosmos Contribution Terms	Before April 2017 (offering preceded the April 6, 2017 public fundraiser).	16,856,718.97 ATOM, 7.137% of genesis supply, delivered as the recommended genesis allocation on March 13, 2019.	None. Unrestricted at genesis; no cliff or vesting.
Public fundraiser contributors (public offering)	Public contribution of BTC or ETH under the Interchain Cosmos Contribution Terms, no SAFT, SAFE or token warrant;	April 2017 (offering opened April 6, 2017).	160,292,500 ATOM, 67.863% of genesis supply, delivered as the recommended genesis allocation on March 13, 2019.	None. Unrestricted at genesis; no cliff or vesting.

16Operational Funding, Economic Flows, and Resource Provisioning

Question

Provide a narrative description of the Project's material funding sources, economic flows, and operational provisioning, broken out by entity: Foundation, Lab/DevCo, and DAO. If an entity does not exist, state that explicitly.

(a) Entity existence — Explicitly state whether each of Foundation, Lab/DevCo, and DAO exists.
(b) Material sources of funding or economic inflows — For each existing entity, describe its primary sources of operational funding or economic inflows, if any (e.g., service fees, grants, donations, treasury reserves, token reserves, staking rewards, validator/sequencer income, partnership payments, retained revenue, or other protocol-related receipts).
(c) Operational use of resources — For each existing entity, briefly describe how those resources are generally used (e.g., development, operations, security, ecosystem support, grants, liquidity support).
(d) Onchain Resource Usage — For each existing entity, provide links to public dashboards and token holder relations reports that help explain on-chain financial activity, treasury activity, fee flows, rewards, or other protocol-controlled resources. Make certain to explain what each link is for.

Response

(a) Entity existence

All three entities exist.

DAO: The Cosmos Hub's on-chain governance system, in which staked ATOM holders vote on proposals. It has no legal wrapper.

Foundation: The Interchain Foundation (Interchain Siftung), a Swiss non-profit foundation registered in Zug, Switzerland.

Lab/DevCo: Cosmos Labs US Inc., a Delaware C-corporation wholly owned by the Interchain Foundation, together with its sister subsidiary Cosmos Labs Korea. Cosmos Labs Korea was formed by the Interchain Foundation in 2026 as a Korean engineering subsidiary and works alongside Cosmos Labs US on development and maintenance of the Cosmos Hub.

(b) Material sources of funding or economic inflows

DAO: The Cosmos Hub community pool is the DAO's only treasury. It is funded by the community tax, which directs 2% of ATOM emissions to the pool at each block, and by any ATOM returned to the pool under the terms of past spend proposals. The pool receives no payments from the Interchain Foundation or Cosmos Labs.

Foundation: The Interchain Foundation is funded by its independent treasury, which originated in the 2017 fundraiser proceeds and the Foundation's 10% genesis ATOM allocation and is held separately from protocol funds. Ongoing inflows are staking rewards on the ATOM the Foundation delegates through its delegation program and returns on treasury assets. The Foundation receives no fees, revenue or token distributions from the Cosmos Hub protocol or the community pool.

17Previous Exploits Affecting The Native Token

Question

If any, list prior exploits or incidents that directly affected the token, token supply, tokenholder balances, token contract, minting controls, burn mechanics, or custody of token supply. This question is not asking about general protocol, application, or smart contract exploits unless the incident directly affected the native token itself.

If no prior incidents, state this explicitly (e.g., "No exploits affecting tokenholders or protocol funds as of YYYY-MM-DD").

(a) Date & component affected — Date (YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD), chain(s)/component affected.
(b) Exploit vector summary — Plain-language summary of the exploit vector (what the hack was).
(c) Quantified impact — Quantified impact (assets/tokens affected or a clear "no loss of funds" statement).
(d) Remediation/response taken — Remediation/response taken (patches, upgrades, governance actions, compensation).
(e) Current status — Current status (resolved, in litigation, under investigation, refunded, etc.).
(f) References — Link(s) to post-mortem/advisory/PR.

Response