[SUSPENDED BY PROPOSER] [DRAFT PROPOSAL] Bring The Equilibrium Rebalancer To Neutron

Dear Neutron users,

We, the Equilibrium team, are making this proposal in response to Build the Interchain Allocator’s Rebalancer on Neutron.

Equilibrium is the winning project at HackWasm 2022 in Medellín, Colombia; it is an auto-rebalancing protocol that allows protocols and users to create weighted portfolios of Cosmos assets. Creating these portfolios is enabled by the Abstract and CronCat protocols and supports a multitude of assets with configurable allocations.

In the Atom 2.0 whitepaper, the Rebalancer is described as “a system for automatically managing asset portfolios with public liquidity.” Equilibrium can provide this functionality as well as allowing for rebalancing of private liquidity.

We believe that the Neutron team and community will find that this proposal strongly aligns with Neutron’s core values of robust, open source, permissionless software; and that Equilibrium is in the prime position to deliver the Interchain Allocator’s Rebalancer to Neutron and the Atom Economic Zone. All within a shorter time frame and at a much better price point.

Equilibrium proposes to build & deploy a prototype Rebalancer to Neutron Testnet within the next 6 weeks and to deploy the Rebalancer on Neutron within the next 6 months:

  • 0.10% of Neutron supply up front
  • 0.08% of Neutron supply on prototype completion
  • 0.15% of Neutron supply upon delivery, unlocked linearly over 2 years (backdated)


Equilibrium enables protocols and users to set a desired portfolio allocation (e.g., 75% $NTRN, 25% stablecoin) and automatically rebalance the portfolio to remain at the desired allocation as prices fluctuate. Redundant rebalancing is mitigated through CronCat’s query-triggered actions, which allows rebalancing to only occur when required. A TBD price-oracle will be employed to protect against malicious price manipulation.

Through usage of the Abstract platform, Equilibrium contracts are lightweight, secure and extremely cheap to maintain. They are highly composable and allow for rapid deployment and iteration.

Contracts from Abstract as well as CronCat have been audited by Oak Security:

Value Proposition

Equilibrium drives liquidity to the entire Atom Economic Zone

Users across the Interchain will be able to buy into portfolios created by other users or entire protocols exclusively on Neutron. 25% of the fees generated from these transactions will go directly to the Neutron community pool, benefiting not only Neutron but also its provider chain, the Cosmos Hub.

Fees will be divided as follows:

  • 50% to the Equilibrium DAO
  • 25% to the Neutron community pool
  • 25% to Abstract, as a platform fee

Equilibrium enables external investors to buy into specific Cosmos portfolios

New capital entering the Cosmos ecosystem can easily gain exposure to baskets of the most influential Cosmos projects through an Equilibrium portfolio. Through this new mechanism of diversified investment, new Neutron projects will have a greater chance of attracting large investment and liquidity.

Equilibrium will attract new MEV value to the Atom Economic Zone

The Atom Economic Zone is poised to magnetize fresh MEV value. Thanks to the intrinsic functionality of cross-chain swaps, Equilibrium introduces a natural habitat for MEV opportunities that get activated every time portfolio rebalancing is set into motion. Our deliberate decision to build the Rebalancer on the Neutron platform guarantees a direct profit line for Neutron’s blockspace value from all Equilibrium transactions.

Equilibrium’s composability allows other protocols to build on top of Neutron

Because Equilibrium contracts are composable, external protocols can easily innovate upon the rebalancer contract, enabling $SPX-style portfolios with functionality that is beyond the scope of the base Equilibrium contract.

Equilibrium will align incentives with the Timewave team to bring the Rebalancer to market

At Equilibrium, we’re laying the groundwork to synergize our efforts with the Timewave team to accelerate the Rebalancer’s market introduction. Undeniably, Timewave carries an esteemed reputation as thought architects within the Cosmos ecosystem. Although we have faith in Timewave’s potential to successfully commercialise a Rebalancer product, we’re also convinced that our team stands a higher probability of realising this product to its fullest potential. Hence, we’re suggesting an innovative plan of action. We propose that, once the Rebalancer is successfully constructed, and following the approval of a fresh Neutron proposal, Timewave transitions into the role of de facto promoters for the Interchain Allocator’s Rebalancer product. It’s a strategic move designed to make the most of our collective strengths.

Cancellation Clauses

Should Equilibrium fail to deliver the Rebalancer within 6 months, or displease the Neutron Community in any way such that they vote to cancel the proposal, we will respect the voice of the Neutron community.


Our team has years of development experience in Cosmos and beyond, and have contributed to a multitude of public goods projects throughout the Interchain, as well as winning the HackWasm 2022 hackathon.

Core Team

Adair Kelley: Co-founder of Abstract, top contributor to Cosmology and ts-codegen, prev. Amazon Web Services.

Robin Bisschop: Ideator and co-founder of Abstract, creator of cw-orchestrator, prev. CTO at White Whale, launched flash loan vaults on Terra.

Josef Leventon: Co-founder of Swift Protocol, lead front-end eng. Mesh Security, prev. Stargaze.


Jake Hartnell: Co-founder of Juno, Stargaze, DAO DAO, general partner at Analog Interchain, and maintainer of key infrastructure such as cw-nfts.

Ethan Frey: Creator of CosmWasm, founder of Confio, early contributor to Cosmos.

A major part of the funds requested in this proposal will be used to hire additional team members to bring the Equilibrium vision to fruition.

Fund Allocation

3.3M NTRN total

  • 1,000,000 NTRN upfront
  • 800,000 NTRN on prototype completion
  • 1,500,000 NTRN on delivery, unlocked linearly over 2 years, backdated to the proposal passing

Funds will be overseen and spent by the Equilibrium DAO.



Nah, there’s a history here and it stinks.

I think who the advisors are matters. A lot. I don’t want core one to spread out over the cosmos.

Response to Rarma on Twitter spaces, who’s saying that a core one product can do the same as timewave…

It can’t.

There is no product as conflicted as daodao. There is no group that has violated governance to the same degree as daodao.

Neutron did a very good, smart thing by forking daodao cause neutron got all the software with none of the moral risk.

(Note: I wouldn’t always say this in fact overall, work should be paid but how on earth to pay core 1 without ending up totally conflicted? You can’t)

Croncats is great, except rolling about with core 1 right now.

ts-codegen ks great, except rolling about with core 1 right now.

1 Like

Equilibrium is not a core-1 product.
It was built by the following team at HackWasm 2022:

  • Robin Bisschop
  • Adair Kelley
  • Josef Leventon
  • Maurits Bos
  • Costa Giannakakis

Advisors do not receive any voting shares in the Equilibrium DAO and will not receive any NTRN tokens from the community pool allocation proposed here. DAODAO as an entity is not and was never involved in the development of Equilibrium.

Our advisors are here to help guide the team through bringing the product to market, and are not directly involved in the development process.

We appreciate your concern Jacob but we believe that Jake Hartnell’s presence on our advisory board is a non-issue.

1 Like

Hey man thank you for clarifying.

Unfortunately historically with C1, it’s been incredibly challenging to determine what is and is not C1.

It seems to change suddenly and without notice, or even with a failed governance proposal being acted on.

Anyhow I came here with him somewhat different message, which is that if the DAODAO on neutron can be fully sovereign then maybe neutron should consider compensating daodao for maintenance.

But only maybe really, I don’t know.

Then, as for your proposal I just want to tell you that advisors matter, they provide advice and guidance and what I experienced in terms of advice and guidance from Jake, member of core 1, was directly and entirely opposite to what transpired and even what he actually did, and I don’t want you or neutron to have to deal with that. It ain’t right. I listen to the call so I know that there was a member of the neutron team voicing concerns as well.

You’ve got to understand that we’re no different, we’re trying to build stuff in an ecosystem that we love and if you don’t see the problem with this being acted on, maybe it’s because it hasn’t happened to you (yet)

There’s been no public recognition that this is no different from base rank level fraud by core one and I’ve had a core one member literally on a campaign against me since speaking on the matter, saying that mentioning it is my fault.

No, follow your own gov props core one! It’s simple.

It is freaking July and they’re just now getting around to canceling the contract. maybe. who knows.

So I’m telling you this, @soi2studio is telling you this and believe it or not we actually want what’s best for neutron, which brings me to my next point.

Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to directly speak with timeweave?

I don’t doubt the talent of the team you just presented. Zero.

I did speak with timeweave but not about your proposal, And what I was told actually made tons of sense. What they were saying was that they were basically lining up to be a core team of neutron, and that they I wish to be engaged in a long-term fashion, and feel that the trend toward de minimus grants, leads to a mercenary builder culture. Now please keep in mind that I’m not calling you guys mercenaries. As far as I understand it many of the people who are working on this had their situation badly badly impacted by juno.

So what I’m going to say is I’m going to encourage you guys as talented developers, to really take a hard look at the situation, maybe ask yourself if I would be handling this differently these issues had been handled in a proper and upfront manner, instead of literally telling me to shut up, and if the concerns that were shared on the call, immediately when the topic came up, might actually be rather valid.

I’m speaking to you right now as another developer entrepreneur to another, sharing a very very difficult situation, it could have been easily avoided by simply using governance. Guess what? What actually happened is I was told hey you should stick around, that was also told that we be paid when investing contracts came in, five months past, then I was told that we would be paid zero. Zero. Zero!

Since then I’ve had to deal with Reece going around on Twitter saying that he’s been the only developer on Juno since September, Max actually seeming to support a conspiracy theory that I was attempting to sabotage this here neutron.

No I want you to take all that in please, understand it, get a grip on it, and then ask yourself wait why are people concerned?

Acting in a decent fashion toward both notional and strange love, providing them with clarity, would have cost core 1 zero. Nothing. They didn’t do that. They acted on an unpased governance proposal.

Or does this look like it passed to you?

Oh and perhaps you should ask your advisor, is every single word Jacob is saying here true?

Thank you for your input Jacob. All of it is duly noted.

It is my team and I’s belief that the free market (i.e. the Neutron community) will decide what the adequate proposal that benefits Neutron the most is.

As mentioned in our proposal, we are happy to work with Timewave to bring the Rebalancer to market, but believe that we are better positioned to build the Rebalancer.

We also believe that Neutron stakeholders will be more aligned with our funding proposal, which is more in line with conventional development costs accross the board.

It is the community’s decision whether or not Timewave will become a defacto core team for Neutron. Our belief is that “mercenary builder culture,” which we prefer to refer to as “free market competition,” is a necessary byproduct of a free and fair governance system that puts the interests of the chain/community first.

We believe that the Neutron community will make the right choice when deciding which of the Rebalancer proposals it moves forward with, whatever the outcome. Personally, I’m very excited to potentially see more teams propose concepts for the Rebalancer, as an abundance of choice/competition will only benefit Neutron stakeholders further.


1 Like

Just to be clear, i raised a concern over an obvious conflict of interest between member(s) of the advisory board and neutron. Nothing more.


Fyi that’s all I meant


Please do. Talk to them and build it with em.

Please allow me to be super clear, don’t build it in opposition to them, build it with them in mind and in spirit and please further understand @josef Good sir, you’re pro.

Nothing that I’ve said is intended to diminish that, and if it even felt that way a little bit, please accept my apology.

1 Like

I’d like to address the recent prop and my advisory position. While I’ve offered to help share my Cosmos/CosmWasm knowledge, I believe there was a misunderstanding that this was implicit consent to be an advisor for this prop. A number of respectable humans are having an incredible, unofficial off-site and excitement is mooning. Regrettably, collective effervescence is susceptible to mole-hill misunderstandings, so I wanted to address this head on.

I don’t know much about what The Rebalancer is, so please consider this a miscommunication. I’m not qualified to advise on this, but am happy to answer dev questions to anyone. (Except if you voted NWV on props I care about, heheh) And I am exceptionally interested in advising how these amazing new approaches can integrate with trustless automation.

I could have done a better job of understanding what was going on, and can understand that pieces of the prop might not taste as delectable as I’d imagined, but onward with open arms.

I agree with what Jacob is saying, “don’t build it in opposition to them, build it with them in mind …”

Throughout the marathon of launching CronCat, I do want to advise anyone and everyone to the best of my ability.

Perhaps this can be flipped on its head and a useful galvanizing moment where we can agree that mutual cooperation is king. John Nash did work to show that math tells us this. I highly respect a ton of people in this ecosystem, and hope that the scarcity demon doesn’t turn great folks into adversaries.

1 Like

Hey there, I think you’d make a great advisor.

I want you advising this project and many more.

My concerns surround core 1 entirely.

Core 1 operates in flagrant violation of Juno’s proposal 64 and Jake Hartnell authored proposal 64, while subsequently making moves to directly violate it.

In order to make this go anywhere though, I think that you should speak with @hxrts. You see, the thing is he is interested in very long-term work. This particular proposal was written in a rather short term mindset.

Personally, I think that this proposal can work, but only if it becomes somehow a part of the plan to build the allocator.

I will also gladly throw out there that the allocator should endeavor to support not only astroport, but Osmosis and duality.

Yes, this.

I think you just earned your advisory position, and I also think that this is the attitude that gets these developers set with work that they are well suited for, and bridges the gap in understanding between time weave, and the team wishing to build the rebalancer. I will endeavor to facilitate connections between let’s say initially, yourself and timeweave, so that we can get this thing off the ground. Your experience in building croncats will prove very valuable.

Yes precisely this is the correct outcome, this is the outcome that we should seek, and this is the outcome that I am going to work to achieve starting with connecting you directly with Sam on the DMs on the bird app.