Nolus Is Not Leaving Cosmos: It Is Going Where the Liquidity Is

Over the past several weeks, Nolus governance has processed an unusual number of proposals: closing markets on Osmosis, authorizing Solana relayers, deploying contracts, registering oracles, and adding new assets.

Behind this succession of votes lies a major strategic shift.

Nolus is not simply moving its blockchain to Solana. The protocol is keeping its Pirin blockchain, validators, governance, and NLS staking. What is changing is where its financial operations are executed.

Positions remain managed by Nolus, but swaps, repayments, liquidations, and closures can now be executed remotely on Solana, where more liquidity and users are available.

Why Solana?

For a margin trading protocol, technology alone is not enough. It also needs deep markets, lenders, users, and sufficient trading volume.

The difference in scale is currently considerable. At the time of writing, DefiLlama reports approximately:

  • $2.78 billion in daily DEX volume on Solana, compared with around $2.95 million on Osmosis;
  • $5.78 billion in TVL on Solana, compared with approximately $11.5 million on Osmosis;
  • more than $16 billion in stablecoins available across Solana.

These figures change daily, but the difference in scale speaks for itself: Solana currently generates more than 900 times the daily DEX volume of Osmosis. Sources: Solana data and Osmosis data.

Nolus can also access liquidity from Raydium, Orca, Meteora, Lifinity, and many other markets. The protocol no longer has to wait for enough liquidity to develop around each individual integration.

It can go directly where that liquidity already exists.

Solray Connects Nolus to Solana

This new architecture relies on Solray, an IBC implementation that allows Solana to communicate with Cosmos chains.

According to Nolus, the connection already works end to end: IBC channel creation, transfers in both directions, and the complete remote execution of a position, from opening to closure. Source: Nolus Changelog 2026.8.

The Nolus blockchain retains control over protocol coordination, while financial operations can be executed remotely across Solana markets.

This is therefore not an abandonment of Cosmos, but a more modular architecture:

  • Nolus retains governance and position management;
  • Solray provides communication between the networks;
  • Solana provides access to liquidity;
  • aggregators identify the best execution routes.

Gradually Closing the Old Markets

This shift is accompanied by the retirement of markets that no longer generate sufficient activity.

Governance has progressively closed the Osmosis markets associated with ATOM, OSMO, allBTC, and Noble USDC. For the latter, proposal 353 arranged for the automatic return of remaining deposits before the market was fully closed. Source: proposal 353.

This decision also comes as native USDC migrates from Noble to Injective. The former Nolus deployment on Osmosis depended heavily on the Noble USDC denomination.

ATOM and OSMO were also removed from the list of assets accepted for network fees, with declining liquidity cited directly in the proposal.

Rather than continue maintaining secondary markets with limited activity, Nolus is concentrating its resources on markets offering greater potential.

Why So Many Governance Votes?

Between proposal 340, which entered voting on August 17, and proposal 363, submitted on September 10, 24 proposals were introduced in less than one month.

They do not represent 24 different strategic directions. Most are technical stages of the same deployment:

  • authorizing the relayers communicating with Solana;
  • adding the controllers responsible for remote positions;
  • installing and activating the new contracts;
  • registering oracle price feeders;
  • accepting USDC, SOL, cbBTC, WETH, and HYPE for network fees;
  • opening markets funded with USDC and SOL;
  • adding JLP, PUMP, and ZEC as available assets;
  • removing outdated contract versions from node memory.

Nolus governance must approve many of these operations separately. This explains the accumulation of proposals, even if voting periods limited to 24 hours can make them difficult to follow.

The four most recent cleanup proposals illustrate this constraint. Their purpose is to remove 328 superseded contract versions from validator memory. The operation had to be split into four separate proposals because handling everything at once would have exceeded the gas limit of a single block.

Liquidity Does Not Guarantee Success

Solana offers Nolus a much larger playing field, but also a far more competitive one.

The protocol must still attract lenders, convince new users, and generate enough positions to turn this available liquidity into actual revenue.

The central question also remains value capture for NLS. Part of the protocol’s revenue is intended to fund token buybacks and replenish lender incentives. If the Solana integration generates significantly more activity, it could therefore strengthen the NLS economy.

However, this will have to be demonstrated through measurable results: deposits, active positions, volume, revenue, and effective token buybacks.

Conclusion

Nolus could have continued maintaining increasingly small markets while waiting for liquidity to return. Instead, the protocol has chosen to preserve its sovereignty while moving execution to a more active environment.

The many recent governance votes therefore form part of the same movement: closing old markets, connecting Solana, installing new contracts, and preparing support for new assets.

Nolus is not leaving Cosmos.

It is simply acknowledging that a financial protocol cannot survive on technology alone. It also needs liquidity, users, and volume.

Solana can provide that playing field. The next question is whether Nolus can turn it into sustainable activity — and lasting value for NLS.

Nolus Is Not Leaving Cosmos: It Is Going Where the Liquidity Is

Over the past several weeks, Nolus governance has processed an unusual number of proposals: closing markets on Osmosis, authorizing Solana relayers, deploying contracts, registering oracles, and adding new assets.

Behind this succession of votes lies a major strategic shift.

Nolus is not simply moving its blockchain to Solana. The protocol is keeping its Pirin blockchain, validators, governance, and NLS staking. What is changing is where its financial operations are executed.

Positions remain managed by Nolus, but swaps, repayments, liquidations, and closures can now be executed remotely on Solana, where more liquidity and users are available.

Why Solana?

For a margin trading protocol, technology alone is not enough. It also needs deep markets, lenders, users, and sufficient trading volume.

The difference in scale is currently considerable. At the time of writing, DefiLlama reports approximately:

  • $2.78 billion in daily DEX volume on Solana, compared with around $2.95 million on Osmosis;
  • $5.78 billion in TVL on Solana, compared with approximately $11.5 million on Osmosis;
  • more than $16 billion in stablecoins available across Solana.

These figures change daily, but the difference in scale speaks for itself: Solana currently generates more than 900 times the daily DEX volume of Osmosis. Sources: Solana data and Osmosis data.

Nolus can also access liquidity from Raydium, Orca, Meteora, Lifinity, and many other markets. The protocol no longer has to wait for enough liquidity to develop around each individual integration.

It can go directly where that liquidity already exists.

Solray Connects Nolus to Solana

This new architecture relies on Solray, an IBC implementation that allows Solana to communicate with Cosmos chains.

According to Nolus, the connection already works end to end: IBC channel creation, transfers in both directions, and the complete remote execution of a position, from opening to closure. Source: Nolus Changelog 2026.8.

The Nolus blockchain retains control over protocol coordination, while financial operations can be executed remotely across Solana markets.

This is therefore not an abandonment of Cosmos, but a more modular architecture:

  • Nolus retains governance and position management;
  • Solray provides communication between the networks;
  • Solana provides access to liquidity;
  • aggregators identify the best execution routes.

Gradually Closing the Old Markets

This shift is accompanied by the retirement of markets that no longer generate sufficient activity.

Governance has progressively closed the Osmosis markets associated with ATOM, OSMO, allBTC, and Noble USDC. For the latter, proposal 353 arranged for the automatic return of remaining deposits before the market was fully closed. Source: proposal 353.

This decision also comes as native USDC migrates from Noble to Injective. The former Nolus deployment on Osmosis depended heavily on the Noble USDC denomination.

ATOM and OSMO were also removed from the list of assets accepted for network fees, with declining liquidity cited directly in the proposal.

Rather than continue maintaining secondary markets with limited activity, Nolus is concentrating its resources on markets offering greater potential.

Why So Many Governance Votes?

Between proposal 340, which entered voting on August 17, and proposal 363, submitted on September 10, 24 proposals were introduced in less than one month.

They do not represent 24 different strategic directions. Most are technical stages of the same deployment:

  • authorizing the relayers communicating with Solana;
  • adding the controllers responsible for remote positions;
  • installing and activating the new contracts;
  • registering oracle price feeders;
  • accepting USDC, SOL, cbBTC, WETH, and HYPE for network fees;
  • opening markets funded with USDC and SOL;
  • adding JLP, PUMP, and ZEC as available assets;
  • removing outdated contract versions from node memory.

Nolus governance must approve many of these operations separately. This explains the accumulation of proposals, even if voting periods limited to 24 hours can make them difficult to follow.

The four most recent cleanup proposals illustrate this constraint. Their purpose is to remove 328 superseded contract versions from validator memory. The operation had to be split into four separate proposals because handling everything at once would have exceeded the gas limit of a single block.

Liquidity Does Not Guarantee Success

Solana offers Nolus a much larger playing field, but also a far more competitive one.

The protocol must still attract lenders, convince new users, and generate enough positions to turn this available liquidity into actual revenue.

The central question also remains value capture for NLS. Part of the protocol’s revenue is intended to fund token buybacks and replenish lender incentives. If the Solana integration generates significantly more activity, it could therefore strengthen the NLS economy.

However, this will have to be demonstrated through measurable results: deposits, active positions, volume, revenue, and effective token buybacks.

Conclusion

Nolus could have continued maintaining increasingly small markets while waiting for liquidity to return. Instead, the protocol has chosen to preserve its sovereignty while moving execution to a more active environment.

The many recent governance votes therefore form part of the same movement: closing old markets, connecting Solana, installing new contracts, and preparing support for new assets.

Nolus is not leaving Cosmos.

It is simply acknowledging that a financial protocol cannot survive on technology alone. It also needs liquidity, users, and volume.

Solana can provide that playing field. The next question is whether Nolus can turn it into sustainable activity — and lasting value for NLS.

Related Post :