Astroport × Eris Collaboration & Development: for discussion.
Reduce duplication, increase liquidity, increase volume (options for debate)
Part 1 — TL;DR
This is the “collaboration & development” pillar. It should be non-blocking: Pillars 1–2 ship regardless.
Astroport is a multi-chain AMM with deployments including Terra and Neutron.
Astroport has explicit fee routing mechanics (LP fees + Astral Assembly portion used for ASTRO buyback into xASTRO).
On Neutron specifically, ARC-57 describes a commitment that the Astroport satellite will donate 10% of accrued maker fees to the Neutron DAO treasury “in perpetuity.”
This proposal invites discussion on three collaboration options (I have included all three as I see to kickstart debate debate) and designed to:
-
produce more dev output with less duplication
-
increase Terra liquidity (rails)
-
increase Astroport volume (more order flow)
Part 2 — Full proposal (discussion draft)
1) Why this exists
Terra and Astroport share incentives and users across deployments. At the same time, Cosmos appchains are consolidating and liquidity is becoming “homeless.” Mars’ stated wind-down window amplifies that migration moment. It remains unclear as to the direction Neutron is taking but with greater focus on BTCfi it seems unlikely that any further Neutron funding will be made available for Astroport other than patching and maintenance. A decision will be required by Terra during 2025.
If Terra is going to win, it needs:
-
deep rails (Pillar 1 + 2)
-
and a leaner dev strategy across key infrastructure (this pillar)
2) Shared objectives
There have been some historical shared objectives but these now need to be focussed.
-
More dev output with less duplication, possibly a consolidation between Astroport and Eris
-
More Terra liquidity, via Astroport pool dynamics, routing and fees distribution
-
More Astroport volume via cross collaborating with Terra BD plan and TLA
(And to measure with net inflows / TVL / volume+fees / retention.)
3) Collaboration options (for debate)
Option A — Plugin partnership (least challenging but likely least rewarding)
Idea: Astroport + Eris collaborate on “incentive & onboarding plugins”:
-
tighter integration between TLA incentives and Astroport pool objectives
-
shared dashboards (Terra Pulse style)
-
standard “campaign modules” for Competition Pool seasons
-
better cross-venue liquidity bootstrapping tools
Pros: minimal political friction;
Cons: may not immediately redirect value flows; relies on coordination and does Terra have the time for the easy option?
Option B — Joint development & liquidity growth fund (middle ground)
Idea: form a transparent “Rails & Liquidity Growth Fund” to finance:
-
shared dev work that improves execution, routing, and incentive tooling
-
campaigns that bring net new users/liquidity
Funding sources can be additive (re-examining existing Neutron commitments):
-
sponsor budgets
-
campaign allocations
-
optional Terra-specific fee share / grants
Pros: creates aligned incentives and possibly challenging ARC-57.
Cons: requires governance structure and ongoing reporting.
Option C — Revenue realignment / renegotiation (almost certainly one of the best outcomes for Terra but a hard path)
Idea: explore renegotiating value flows so Terra receives a portion of the economic upside it is helping to generate (in exchange for deeper rails/incentives and shared development).
Important constraint: ARC-57 includes “10% of accrued maker fees” to Neutron DAO “in perpetuity,” so any change must be framed as a new deal that benefits all parties.
Option D — Terra-led consolidation: unify dev + move the governance hub back to Terra
What this means (in plain terms)
Astroport originally had governance on Terra 2 (Astral Assembly went live there), but later Astroport governance/staking was moved to Neutron (the “hub migration” direction).
This option proposes exploring the reverse: make Terra the governance + development hub again, with Astroport remaining multi-chain, but coordination and core roadmap execution anchored on Terra.
Why it could make sense
-
Less duplication, faster shipping
A single hub reduces fragmented development and “two chains, two priorities” drift. Astroport is already a multi-chain protocol with multiple contract targets, so consolidation is mainly about coordination and where governance/roadmap sits. -
Align incentives with where the rails are being rebuilt
Pillar 1 + 2 are about restoring Terra’s rails (deep USDC-like liquidity, yield loops, fun campaigns) using Eris Liquidity Hub as the incentive center. Placing the “hub” where incentives and campaigns are being executed creates a tighter flywheel. -
Terra gets clearer value capture for the liquidity it is financing
If Terra is consistently funding strategic liquidity outcomes, it’s reasonable to explore whether governance and development should be closer to the chain bearing that load.
The hard path…
On Neutron, there are existing commitments like ARC-57 (10% of maker fees on Neutron satellite donated to Neutron DAO treasury “in perpetuity”). This would need to tackled.
How it could work in practice – some options
A) Start with a “shared core team” before any governance move
-
Form a joint Astroport × Terra core working group with a single roadmap, shared repos, and explicit ownership of deliverables (plugins, incentives tooling, dashboards, campaign modules).
-
Terra contributes through BD/incentives and/or a dedicated dev fund (Option B), but with milestones and transparency.
B) Governance hub move is a Phase 2 decision, contingent on results
Only if Phase A measurably improves:
-
dev throughput,
-
Terra liquidity depth/retention,
-
Astroport volume/fees,
…then propose moving the hub governance back to Terra via Astroport’s governance process.
Pros
-
Simplifies governance + dev execution
-
Stronger Terra rails + clearer narrative (“Terra is the hub again”)
-
Better alignment between liquidity incentives (Eris/TLA) and Astroport routing/roadmap
Cons
-
Politically sensitive (“why should Neutron lose hub status?”)
-
Requires Astroport governance buy-in (cannot be unilaterally imposed)
-
Must respect existing Neutron-side commitments (ARC-57), so deal design matters
4) Governance ask (non-blocking)
-
Approve a mandate to open discussions with Astroport stakeholders on Options A–D.
-
Request a short options paper: feasibility, tradeoffs, and what each party gets.
-
Confirm the non-blocking rule: Proposals 1–2 proceed regardless.