Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
CFD
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Pre-IPOs
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
Promotions
AI
Gate AI
Your all-in-one conversational AI partner
Gate AI Bot
Use Gate AI directly in your social App
GateClaw
Gate Blue Lobster, ready to go
Gate for AI Agent
AI infrastructure, Gate MCP, Skills, and CLI
Gate Skills Hub
10K+ Skills
From office tasks to trading, the all-in-one skill hub makes AI even more useful.
GateRouter
Smartly choose from 40+ AI models, with 0% extra fees
Osmosis and Celestia Integration Path: How the IBC Modular Ecosystem Evolves
On April 17, 2026, a governance proposal codenamed COSMOSIS was narrowly rejected in the Cosmos Hub community vote. The Osmosis team subsequently confirmed that its network would “continue to operate as an independent and profitable chain.” This outcome not only signaled a temporary halt to the Osmosis and Cosmos Hub merger plan but also raised a more imaginative question: after independence, how will Osmosis redefine its ecological niche amid the wave of modular blockchains?
Based on Gate market data, as of May 21, 2026, OSMO is priced at approximately $0.06322, with a market cap of about $48.95 million, and a 24-hour trading volume of roughly $1.46M; TIA is priced at about $0.4082, with a market cap of approximately $375 million; ATOM is priced around $2.047, with a market cap of about $1.04B. Behind these price trends, reflects a structural game within the Cosmos ecosystem around “sovereignty versus aggregation” and “independence versus coupling.”
Will Osmosis choose Celestia as its data availability layer? This is not only a technical integration question between two chains but also involves the evolution direction of the IBC ecosystem amid the modular wave.
After the COSMOSIS Rejection
The core design of the COSMOSIS proposal was to exchange 1.998 OSMO for 0.0355 ATOM at a fixed ratio within six months, ultimately integrating Osmosis DEX into the governance and liquidity system of Cosmos Hub. The proposers initially attempted to fund the exchange by minting additional ATOM. Before voting, the Osmosis team made a key adjustment based on community feedback: the required ATOM would be purchased gradually from Osmosis DEX protocol revenues on the open market, with a cap of 2.5% of the total ATOM supply to alleviate dilution concerns among ATOM holders. However, this adjustment still failed to reverse the voting outcome.
On May 11, 2026, about three weeks after the results, discussions on the revised integration path reignited. OSMO surged from about $0.03383 to a peak of $0.128 within 12 hours, a 24-hour increase of roughly 200%. Data also showed that during this rally, Osmosis on-chain DEX trading volume was only about $1.24 million, with a trading volume gap of approximately 141 times compared to centralized exchanges, indicating that the rally was driven more by centralized market funds than by organic growth within the on-chain ecosystem.
This officially established the narrative of Osmosis operating independently.
The Tripartite Game in the Modular Narrative
The following timeline outlines key nodes in the “independent—aggregated—modular” game among Osmosis, Celestia, and Cosmos Hub:
Role Differentiation of the Three Chains
The Cosmos ecosystem is undergoing a profound redivision of roles. The functions of ATOM, OSMO, and TIA are shifting from the past “loose parallelism” toward “layered coupling.”
Comparison of the three chains’ roles
| Dimension | Cosmos Hub (ATOM) | Osmosis (OSMO) | Celestia (TIA) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Ecosystem Role | Governance and Security Layer | Liquidity Layer | Data Availability Layer | | Core Capabilities | IBC routing, shared security | Cross-chain DEX, liquidity aggregation | Data publishing and validation | | Current Market Cap | About $1.04B | About $48.95 million | About $375 million | | Core Narrative Focus | Cross-chain connectivity rather than integration | Modular liquidity hub | Pluggable DA infrastructure |
(Note: Market cap data sourced from Gate market data, as of May 21, 2026.)
Existing Integration Basis between Osmosis and Celestia
The coupling between Osmosis and Celestia is not from scratch. In fact, several key integrations have already been completed:
TIA as Fee Token: The Osmosis community, via a proposal, added TIA as a legitimate fee token for Osmosis trading, enabling users interacting solely with Celestia to trade on Osmosis for the first time. Osmosis aims to become the primary marketplace for Celestia and rollups using TIA tokens.
Pipette Liquidity Bridge: Osmosis launched the Pipette plan, establishing a direct connection with Celestia via IBC, and leveraging Hyperlane’s cross-chain messaging to connect various rollups. Celestia rollups can use Pipette to pay data availability fees with any token on Osmosis, gaining bidirectional liquidity.
Abstracting Data Availability Fees: Osmosis is exploring the use of fee abstraction modules, allowing rollups to pay Celestia’s data availability fees with their own assets (not necessarily holding TIA). This can effectively address key friction points hindering external ecosystem adoption in the modular ecosystem.
Concentrated Liquidity Pools: Osmosis launched a TIA/OSMO super-charged liquidity pool, with an initial liquidity of about $200k, providing a more efficient price discovery mechanism for TIA trading within the Cosmos ecosystem.
These integrations indicate that the relationship between Osmosis and Celestia has moved beyond “strategic intent” into substantive protocol coupling. After independence, Osmosis has stronger economic incentives to deepen this coupling—since it no longer needs to wait for Cosmos Hub governance to decide its technical stack choices.
Public Opinion: Support, Skepticism, and Observation
Regarding the deep integration narrative between Osmosis and Celestia, market participants generally fall into three camps:
Liquidity Hub Camp (Support)
Core logic: After operating independently, Osmosis needs to shed its narrative dependence on Cosmos Hub and find new growth engines. The modular ecosystem of Celestia is a rapidly expanding market—by Q1 2026, over 56 rollups have connected to Celestia DA, with 37 deployed on mainnet.
These rollups require an efficient liquidity layer to meet needs such as cross-chain asset transfers, token trading, and data availability fee payments. Osmosis can provide all three. Supporters believe that if Osmosis becomes the “default liquidity layer” of the Celestia ecosystem, its trading volume and fee income could see structural growth, rather than short-term spikes driven by governance events.
Technical Path Risk (Skepticism)
Core skepticism: Currently, Celestia uses the aTokenFilter mechanism, which mainly allows TIA to stay within its state machine; cross-chain movement of other non-native tokens requires middleware like Packet Forward Middleware and Neutron. Fee abstraction is still experimental.
Moreover, Celestia is not Osmosis’s only data availability option. Competitors include Ethereum’s Blob market, EigenDA, Avail, and others. Deep binding to Celestia would mean aligning the ecosystem’s strategic direction with a protocol still in market validation.
Ecosystem Drainage Concern (Observation)
The third camp worries about overall ecosystem attrition. In January 2026, Noble announced migration to an independent EVM L1. Noble’s IBC transfer volume within the ecosystem was leading—reaching $93.84 million in 30 days, 1.8 times Osmosis’s $50.06 million. Meanwhile, Sei Network officially disabled IBC asset transfer in May 2026, shifting to a pure EVM architecture.
Ecosystem drainers pose a sharp question: as more application chains choose to exit the IBC ecosystem, is Osmosis’s cross-chain liquidity advantage being diluted? In this scenario, deep binding to Celestia might just be “changing seats on the same shrinking ship.”
Industry Impact Analysis: Accelerating Modular Division and Repositioning IBC
From Hub-Centric to Liquidity-Centric
The proposal and rejection of COSMOSIS reflect two internal strategic paths within the Cosmos ecosystem: one is “Hub-centered” integration, consolidating liquidity, governance, and security into the ATOM economy; the other is “liquidity-focused” loose coupling, where application chains maintain sovereignty but freely compose via IBC and modular protocols.
If Osmosis deepens cooperation with Celestia, it signals that the second path has gained a more practical case within Cosmos. It conveys that liquidity layers do not necessarily need to be embedded in the Hub to be valuable—they can form “decentralized coupling” with data availability layers, jointly serving a broader modular application chain ecosystem.
Cosmos and Ethereum’s Modular Path Divergence
This choice will also have industry-wide implications beyond Cosmos. Ethereum’s modular path is a “Rollup-Centric” route with L1 as settlement and data availability layer—L2 executes transactions, L1 ensures data availability and settlement security. Cosmos’s modular path is “sovereign rollups + pluggable modules”—application chains can independently choose Celestia as DA layer, Osmosis as liquidity layer, without relying on a single settlement hub.
These modes are not zero-sum but reflect different technical philosophies: Ethereum emphasizes shared security and unified settlement; Cosmos emphasizes sovereignty and flexible composition. Deep integration between Osmosis and Celestia will serve as a key stress test for the “Cosmos model.”
Multi-Scenario Evolution Projections
Based on the above analysis, here are possible evolution paths for Osmosis and Celestia:
Scenario 1: Gradual Deepening
Osmosis maintains its independent chain identity while gradually deepening protocol integration with Celestia. Fee abstraction is experimentally implemented in late 2026, Pipette bridges enable larger-scale bidirectional rollup asset flows. As Celestia’s ecosystem expands, Osmosis’s trading volume and fee income grow modestly. This is the most probable scenario, aligning with the public statements of the Osmosis team on “next phases of their roadmap.”
Scenario 2: Strategic Strong Binding
If more application chains in Cosmos follow Noble and Sei in exiting, the network effects of the IBC ecosystem could weaken further. Osmosis might be forced into a closer strategic binding with Celestia—e.g., adopting Celestia DA as the default data publishing channel, establishing joint incentives at the governance level, or exploring tokenomics collaborations. This scenario depends on further IBC ecosystem attrition.
Scenario 3: Multi-DA Strategy
Osmosis adopts a “multi-DA” approach, not relying solely on Celestia but also integrating Ethereum Blob, EigenDA, and others. This reduces single-point dependency but may dilute development focus and the network effects of deep coupling with any one DA layer.
Scenario 4: COSMOSIS Revival
A revised COSMOSIS proposal with a better economic model is re-submitted and passes, leading Osmosis to eventually reach some form of integration with Cosmos Hub. In this case, the relationship between Osmosis and Celestia will depend on Hub governance, not solely Osmosis’s unilateral decision. The 200% surge in OSMO on May 11, 2026, partly prices in this expectation.
Conclusion
The rejection of COSMOSIS is not the end of Osmosis’s narrative but rather the beginning of its independent exploration of the modular path. The core question for Osmosis is no longer “whether to integrate with Celestia”—since integration has already begun and is ongoing—but “to what extent” and “whether the integration approach remains sufficiently differentiated.”
In the era of modular blockchains, the “one chain per application” model is giving way to protocol-level couplings between functional layers. The combination of liquidity and data availability layers could become the second core narrative of the IBC ecosystem after “cross-chain transfers.”
Of course, realizing this narrative requires crossing three key thresholds: the engineering feasibility of fee abstraction, the quality (not just quantity) growth of Celestia rollups, and the overall confidence recovery of the Cosmos ecosystem amid ongoing application chain attrition. Overcoming these thresholds will determine whether Osmosis and Celestia’s “marriage” progresses from forum proposals to protocol reality, or remains at the narrative stage as a temporary imagination.