What is Cosmos?

Cosmos (ATOM) is a decentralized network of independent blockchains, each powered by Byzantine Fault-Tolerant (BFT) consensus algorithms.

$ATOM is the native staking token of the Cosmos Network. The Cosmos vision is to build an “internet of blockchains” that can scale and interoperate with one another.

$ATOM has three use cases:

as a spam-prevention mechanism (paying fees)

• as staking tokens
• as a voting mechanism in governance

Cosmos Validator

The Cosmos Hub is based on Tendermint which relies on a set of validators to secure the network. The role of validators is to run a full node and participate in consensus by broadcasting votes that contain cryptographic signatures signed by the validator's private key. Validators commit new blocks in the blockchain and receive revenue in exchange for their work. Validators must also participate in governance by voting on proposals. Validators are weighted according to their total stake. (Read More…)

Cosmos Delegator

Delegators are ATOM holders who cannot, or do not want to, run a validator themselves. ATOM holders can delegate ATOM to a validator and obtain a part of their revenue in exchange.

Because delegators share revenue with their validators, they also share risks. If a validator misbehaves, each of their delegators are partially slashed in proportion to their delegated stake. This penalty is one of the reasons why delegators must perform due diligence on validators before delegating. Spreading their stake over multiple validators is another layer of protection.

Delegators play a critical role in the system, as they are responsible for choosing validators. Being a delegator is not a passive role. Delegators must actively monitor the actions of their validators and participate in governance. (Read More…)

What is Osmosis?

Osmosis is a DEX protocol built on Cosmos, which means it uses smart contracts to determine the price of digital assets, to produce liquidity via a peer-to-peer (P2P) methodology, and to exact trades between users. This approach to an exchange platform is known as an AMM — a DEX protocol that prices crypto assets in liquidity pools.

OSMO is the native token of the Osmosis network. Primarily, OSMO is used for staking to secure the Osmosis chain. As a PoS token, OSMO is inflationary. Over time, new tokens will be minted and entered into circulation. The maximum number of OSMO tokens has been set at 1 billion and its current total supply is 325,000,000.

What is TERRA (LUNA) 2.0 ?

Terra (LUNA) 2.0 is the newest iteration of cryptocurrency on the Terra blockchain. In May 2022, the Terra blockchain experienced a hard fork prompted by founder Do Kwon and voted on by the community. This created the new Terra 2.0, with a new cryptocurrency, dubbed LUNA or LUNA2, while the original blockchain and coin took on the moniker LUNA Classic, or LUNC. Both blockchains still exist and operate separately, which can cause confusion for new investors. The old token was renamed terra classic (LUNC), and while the original Cosmos chain will continue to operate, the option to mint or burn coins will be disabled. The new blockchain was launched on 28 May 2022. (Read More…)

Governance Voting

Governance for a Blockchain includes giving participants roles and accountability, decision rights, incentives, regulatory compliance requirements, and technical design and architecture decisions.

In PoS (Proof Of Stake) chains such as Cosmos, Osmosis, and Terra, users who have Staked native chains’ assets (such as $ATOM, $OSMO and $LUNA) are eligible to vote on governance proposals. These chains have an on-chain governance mechanism for passing text proposals, changing consensus parameters, and spending funds from the community pool. These governances are driven by the community, which have large overlap with the Cosmos community.

Actually, Governance tokens are a type of cryptocurrency that allow token holders to vote on the direction of a blockchain project. The primary purpose of governance tokens is to decentralize decision-making and to give holders a say in how the project is run.

Voting Power is the amount of tokens that were delegated to (staked in) a validator. The more tokens the more voting power the more power in the consensus protocol that the specific validator has. On the other hand, if a validator does have a high voting power, the decentralization of related chain will be lower because the big validator vote’s weight is more than many other validators.

Proposals start as ideas within the community. After gaining support and feedback from the community, a proposer drafts and submits a proposal alongside an initial deposit. To prevent spam, all governance proposals must obtain a minimum deposit. if a percentage of the total vote is NoWithVeto, quorum is not met, or the minimum deposit isn't reached, the deposit will be burned. All other vote outcomes get their deposits refunded

Methodology

In this dashboard, I am going to take a peak under the hood and compare governance performance on Cosmos, Osmosis and Terra chains.

For this purpose, I am going to analyze:

• The overview of votes, voters, and proposals submitted and executed on these chains as well as the participation of Validators in Proposals
• Proposals Stats and Identify the top proposals with the highest engagement ratio.
• Voters’ stats and top voters with the highest participation ratio.
• Validators’ stats and top participated validators in governance and votings.
• Vote-Switching behavior of voters and validators.
• Distribution of voting power among validators and their evolution over time.
• The evolution of the Nakamoto Coefficient in chains over time.

Nakamoto Coefficient ascertains the number of nodes that must be compromised to affect the blockchain and obstruct it from functioning correctly. A higher Nakamoto measure indicates a more decentralised network. This means that the network has a large number of nodes.

The main tables that I am going to use for this bounty are Cosmos, Osmosis and Terra’s core.fact_governance_votes tables. each successful TX_ID in this table represents a successfully executed vote on the proposal. the ID of the proposal is extractable from proposal_id colum and the wallet address of the voter is extractable from voter column.

There are 4 available vote options for each proposal:

Vote Option 1: YES

Vote Option 2: ABSTAIN

Vote Option 3: NO

Vote Option 4: NO WITH VETO

There are two separate addresses for each validator. one is the actual address of the validator which contains ‘valoper’ in its strings. another one is Account Address which the validator uses it in order to vote on proposals.

So, for analyzing the voting behavior of validators, we should identify the validators’ account address and sync them with the wallet address of the voter on proposal.

For identifying the validator votes in Cosmos and Osmosis we can simply use their core.fact_validators table in order to extract the actual address and account address of the validator. But for Terra there is not any fact_validators table. So. Considering that validators vote with their address not operator_address (terrasvaloper…) there is almost similarity between the first left charecters (I assumed 38 characters) of their addresses if we exclude ‘Valoper’ from their names. For example, a validator’s Operator Address is ==terra==valoper==1c4k24jzduc365kywrsvf5ujz4ya6mwym==pnc4en and its account address is ==terra1c4k24jzduc365kywrsvf5ujz4ya6mwym==y8vq4q. we can see equal characters on blue-marked letters.

So, I have got some help from terra.core.ez_staking in order to sync the extracted address from above methodology with the validator address (that delegators have delegated their $LUNA in that) and extract the label of the validator from this table.

Vote-changing behavior is extracted by joining 2 different tables of voters on one single proposal while their voters and proposals are the same but their vote_option and block_timestamp (vote date) are different.

To analyze the voting-power distribution of validators in governance actions in Cosmos and Osmosis, we can simply use core.fact_validators tables. the delegator_shares column gives us the actual voting power (delegated tokens) of the validator. in Terra, I have subtracted the undelegated (and also redelegated from) amount of tokens from the delegated (and also redelegated to) tokens to the validators in order to extract the net delegated $LUNA in each validator which is the actual voting power.

Active Set Validators in Cosmos: 175

Active Set Validators in Osmosis: 150

Active Set Validators in Terra: 130

These top validators are determined by the amount of native’s token staked in them. the number of active set validators can increase/decrease by voters’ decision in governance.

Also, there is a Date_Trunc field provided in this dashboard so you can change the time basis of over-time charts to your desirable timespan. (Default: Weekly)

according to the above charts, seems Osmosis has the most active governance among these chains. the number of successfully executed proposals and especially votes on Osmosis is more than Cosmos and Terra (the first chart is logarithmic so the difference is more than what you see). But the total number of voters on Cosmos is slightly more than Osmosis and way more than Terra chain. But, as we see, Terra's community has way higher number of submitted draft proposals and there are 3795 suggested proposals in the forums of this community but just a few of them has executed successfully.

Moreover, we can see the majority of executed proposals on all of these 3 chains (especially on Terra) are Text. in Cosmos, CommunityPoolSpend type has the second highest share and on Osmosis, UpdatePoolIncenvites has the second share.

As it was predictable, the most number of executed votes' choices was YES while the second most popular vote option in Cosmos and Osmosis chains is NO but on Terra, NO WITH VETO has the second highest share. And on the last charts, we can see the participation of validators in governance proposals.

As we see, Osmosis has the lead in all terms. this means the Osmosis validators have the highest participation in terms of number of votes, number of voters (validators) and also number of participated proposals in this chain.

But, on the left chart, we can see the participation RATE of validators in Terra is way more than Osmosis and Cosmos. almost 3.47% of all voters on Terra are validators (with way higher voting power) but on Osmosis and Cosmos, the share of voter validators is way less. (Osmosis has the least share so we can say in this part, Osmosis is more decentralized than other chains)

Governance Voting, Voters and Proposals Overview

Daily Average and Over-Time Stats

In this part and as mentioned earlier, you can set your desirable timespan of over-time charts using provided Date_Trunc field above. the default and recommended time basis is Weekly.

According to the above charts, March and April were the months with the highest peak of governance voting in Cosmos and Osmosis chains but as time goes on, the participation rate has decreased significantly on these chains. Also we can see the most number of new first-time voters have participated in Governance in these months. on Terra, we can see the highest peak of governance voting was during the recent months and despite 2 other chains, the participation on Terra is increasing over time but stil has a long way to reach Osmosis and Cosmos. in all chains, we can kinda see a slightly increasing number of executed proposals in governance this means that the community is still active and submitting more and more proposals. There is a close competition between number of voters on Osmosis and Cosmos but currently, there are more number of voters on Cosmos with a slight different from Osmosis. But as we have seen before, the total number of executed votes in Osmosis is way more than 2 other chains.

Totally, we should consider this fact that governance voting in Terra has started way later than Cosmos and Osmosis chains. So, one of the reasons behind the low numbers in Terra's governance and voting can be this.

Proposals Stats

On the left cahrt, we can see the average number of votes and participated voters (and voter validators) per proposal on these chains. As we see, in an average proposal, there are more number of executed votes, active voters and also more number of validator votes and voters in Cosmos compared to the Osmosis and Terra. The interesting thing is that the average number of voter validators and also executed votes by them in an average proposal in Terra chain is more than Osmosis !

So, despite higher number of votes and voters and also executed proposals on Osmosis, the participation rate of Cosmos voters on proposals is more than Osmosis and Terra chains.

According to the above charts, the majority of proposals in Osmosis and Cosmos chains have more than 10,000 voters and also more than 10,000 executed votes.

But on Terra (since the participation rate is the lowest), the most number of proposals have 100 - 250 voters and also 100 - 250 executed votes.

There is much similarity between Cosmos and Osmosis chains in these terms.

According to the above charts, the proposal ID #69 (Include CosmWasm in Rho Upgrade) in Cosmos was the most popular proposal that has attracted the highest number of executed votes but the total number of active voters on proposal id #65 (v7-Theta) was more than all other proposals.

In Osmosis, the proposal ID #206 (Adopt Axelar as the Canonical Ethereum Bridge Service Provider) was the most popular proposal that has attracted the highest number of voters and also highest number of executed votes.

And in Terra, the proposal ID #349 (Upgrade Terra Classic To Re-enable IBC) was the most popular executed proposal in both terms of number of votes and voters.

Voters Stats

Based on the left charts, Osmosis voters are way more active than Cosmos and Terra voters. As we see, the average number of executed votes and participated proposals and also the average daily activity of Osmosis voters is more than Cosmos and Terra chains. So, despite higher number of active voters in Cosmos, we can see Osmosis voters are way more active than Cosmos and Terra chains.

On the left charts, we can see distribution of Voters on these chains by their number of votes and also number of participated proposals. As we see, the majority of voters in Cosmos and Osmosis chains have totally voted 2 - 10 times and also participated in 2 - 5 proposals. But, in Terra, the highest share belong to the voters with only 1 executed vote and 1 participated proposal. Also, we can see the share of high-active voters (with more executed votes and participated proposals) in Osmosis is more than 2 other chains. So, this is another proof that Osmosis voters are more active than other chains.

As we see on the above charts, the wallet address 'cosmos15sq2zrru35dxzxmmer7wexvpywd63n8n30q5eg' is the most active voter in Cosmos that have executed the most number of votes (868) while the most active voter on Osmosis 'osmo1shd5ael9e96h7pvypjqp03rdtr8v4tau9ng9pk' has executed 8929 votes and the most active Terra voter (terra1tu0lx26n8vjkpfjrjdyktnvt3wqfdtup65lyj5) has executed 186 votes. Also on the second-row charts, we can see there is close competition between many voters that have participated in most number of proposals in these chains. Anyway, we can see the number of proposals that Osmosis voters have participated in them is way more than Cosmos and Terra.

So, the top 10 Osmosis voters are also way more active than Cosmos and Terra top voters.

Validators Stats

In the first part of the dashboard, We have seen that validators share in Terra governance voting was more than 2 other chains (which means Terra has the least decentralization).

Now in this part, we can see Osmosis validators have averagely participated in most number of proposals and also executed the most number of votes on them (which makes sense because the number of proposals on Osmosis is more than Cosmos and Terra chains).

The majority of validators in Cosmos and Terra chains have totally executed 25 - 50 votes and also participated in 25 - 50 proposals. But in Osmosis, the most number of validators have executed more than 100 votes and also participated in more than 100 proposals.

According to the above charts, the validators 0base.vc, Audit.One and Chorus One are the 3 most active Cosmos validators that have executed most number of votes (55) in this chain. but the validator 0base.vc has participated in most number of Cosmos proposals (48). in Osmosis, the validator Auto Stake Slash Protected has executed the most number of votes (359) but the validator 0base.vc in here too has also participated in most number of Osmosis proposals (331). And in Terra, the validator Synergy Nodes with 54 votes is the most active validator with the highest number of executed votes on Proposals but Pro-Nodes75 validator has participated in most number of proposals (47)

Vote-Switching Analysis

Vote-changing behavior is the different votes of voters on one single proposal that their vote_option and block_timestamp (vote date) are different.

According to the above charts, Cosmos chain has the highest number of vote-changer compared to the Osmosis and Terra chains.

But on the 2 right charts, we can see the % share of Vote-changers in Terra is more than Cosmos and Osmosis. So, despite lower number of active voters and executed votes on Terra compared to the Osmosis and Cosmos, The share of vote-switchers in Terra is more than other 2.

The proposal id #69 (which was also the top popular proposal in Cosmos) has the highest number of vote-changers but the vote-changer validators in Proposal #82 were more than other proposals. (you can see a deep analysis of proposal #82 in my other Flipside’s dashboard)

in Osmosis, the proposal ID 216 has the most number of vote changers but the validators have changed their votes in proposal #188 more than all other proposals.

and in Terra, proposal #870 and #1354 have experienced the highest number of vote-switching actions.

According to the left charts, in Osmosis and Cosmos, Vote Change Path from YES to NO was the most popular path but in Terra, the majority of votes were changed from ABSTAIN to NO.

So, we can see the last vote of majority of vote-changings was NO regardless of what the first vote what.

in Cosmos, the wallet address 'cosmos1rlmuqh8f96yzdetdnctj4r6prktpt77nfaw2vk' has changed its votes on Proposals more than all other voters. in Osmosis, the wallet address 'osmo1rlmuqh8f96yzdetdnctj4r6prktpt77npxa66y' is the most active vote-changer. and in Terra, the wallet address 'terra1tu0lx26n8vjkpfjrjdyktnvt3wqfdtup65lyj5' is the most active vote-changer. Among validators, Notional and 0base.vc are the 2 most vote-changers in Cosmos. in Osmosis, Notional is also the top active vote-changer. and in Terra, TTGL Money & Autostake Slash Protected are the 2 validators with the most number of vote switchings.

Voting Power Distribution

On the 3 left charts, you can see all validators in Cosmos, Terra and Osmosis chains and also their voting power (staked tokens in them).

As we see, 🐠stake.fish on Cosmos has the highest voting-power (staked $ATOM)

in Osmosis, Cosmostation has the highest voting power (staked $OSMO).

and in Terra, Allnodes.com has the highest voting power (staked $LUNA)

And on the above and left charts, we can see the evolution of Validators’ voting power in Cosmos, Osmosis and Terra chains over time which obviously shows that decentralization in Cosmos is better than Other chains and Terra has the worst situation among these chains.

As mentioned earlier, there are 175 active set validators in Cosmos, 150 in Osmosis and 130 in Terra.

On the above and left charts, we can see the distribution of voting-power among these active set validators.

With a quick overview, we can obviously see that the centralization of Voting-Power in Terra is way more than Osmosis and Cosmos and this is not good at all. Allnodes.com has almost 45.6% of voting staked $LUNA and its voting power is way more than validators.

But on Cosmos and Osmosis, the voting power is well-distributed among different validators meaning that they are more decentralized than Terra.

Nakamoto Coefficient

As mentioned above, Nakamoto Coefficient ascertains the number of nodes that must be compromised to affect the blockchain and obstruct it from functioning correctly. A higher Nakamoto measure indicates a more decentralised network. This means that the network has a large number of nodes.

Summary and Conclusion

According to the above analysis of Cosmos, Terra and Osmosis chains:

• There are way more number of executed proposals and also executed votes on Osmosis but the total number of voters in Cosmos is more than other 2 chains. Terra has the worst situation.
• The majority of votes on proposals were executed with the option YES. the second highest share in Cosmos and Osmosis belongs to the NO votes but in Terra, NO WITH VETO has the second highest share.
• The share of users who hare also voters (voted at least once in governance proposals) in Osmosis is more than Terra and Cosmos. Terra has the least share of voters in its users.
• The participation rate of validators in Terra proposals was more than other chains which shows that Validators have highest impact in Terra proposals.
• In an average day, the number of active voters and also executed votes on Osmosis is more than 2 other chains but Cosmos has the highest number of average daily new first-time voters.
• The highest peak of governance voting was during March and April 2022 in Cosmos and Osmosis chains but as time goes on, the participation rate has also decreased significantly decreased. on the other hand on Terra, the participation rate and number of active voters, executed votes and proposals has increased during recent months.
• The number of new executed proposals on all chains is increasing over time (despite the decreasing voting activity on them) which is a good point.
• in Cosmos, the number of votes and participated voters on Proposals is more than Terra and Osmosis which shows that Cosmos voters are more loyal to the executed proposals on Governance.
• The proposal ids #69 & #65 in Cosmos, #206 in Osmosis and #349 in Terra were the most popular executed proposals on these chains.
• Top voters in Osmosis were way more active than top voters in Cosmos and Terra since their number of executed votes and also participated proposals is more than other chains.
• Osmosis validators are more loyal to the governance votings since their average participation is more than validators in other chains.
• The number of vote-changers and vote-changings in Cosmos is more than Osmosis and Terra but in %Wise, there are more share of vote-switchers in Terra.
• Proposal id #69 & 82 in Cosmos, #216 in Osmosis and #870 & #1354 in Terra have experienced the highest number of vote-changings in these chains.
• The majority of votes that have been changed during Proposals voting-period have finally changed to NO (in Cosmos and Osmosis) or NO WITH VETO (Terra).
• The Nakamoto Coefficient is increasing in all chains but in Cosmos, the growth-rate is more. So, these chains are becoming more and more decentralized as time goes on.
• The voting-power is well-distributed among Osmosis and Cosmos validators while Terra had the worst distribution of voting-power. this means that Cosmos and Osmosis are more decentralized since the validators' impact on the voting-result is less but on Terra the governance is less decentralized.
• Cosmos decentralization is better than Osmosis and Terra chains. Terra has the worst situation because the top 10% of active set validators in this chain have almost 97% of voting power! but on Cosmos, top 10% of validators have almost 60% voting power and in Osmosis, these top 10% validators have almost 70% of voting power.

Discord: Ali3N#8546 Twitter: Alik_110 Email: Alik110.72@Gmail.com

According to the above charts, the Nakamoto Coefficient in these chains is increasing more and more over time and this shows that they are getting more and more decentralized over time which is a good point.

Also, we can kinda sese that the growth rate of Nakamoto Coefficient in Cosmos is more.

According to the left chart, the average daily number of executed votes and also active voters on Osmosis is way more than Cosmos and Terra combined. but, there are more new first-time number of new voters who are joining and voting in Cosmos governance in an average day.

According to the left chart, the average daily number of executed votes and also active voters on Osmosis is way more than Cosmos and Terra combined. but, there are more new first-time number of new voters who are joining and voting in Cosmos governance in an average day.

On the above charts, I have calculated the voting power of Top 10 validators and also top 10% of active set validators in Cosmos, Osmosis and Terra chain to clearly see how the voting-power is distributed among these validators. We can see that Cosmos decentralization is better than Osmosis and Terra chains. Terra has the worst situation because the top 10% of active set validators in this chain have almost 97% of voting power! but on Cosmos, top 10% of validators have almost 60% voting power and in Osmosis, these top 10% validators have almost 70% of voting power.

On the left chart, I have distributed chains’ users by their voter or non-voter type.

As we see, the share of users who have voted at least once in Osmosis is more than Cosmos and Terra.

On the other hand, Terra has the least share of voters in its users.

On these charts, we can see the evolution of users on chains based on their type (voter or non voter).

As we see, the share of voter users in Cosmos is increasing more and more over time. we have seen before that the number of new voters in Cosmos is increasing with higher speed than other chains.

On the other hand, we can see almost increasing share of Terra voters but very slightly.

And on Osmosis, we have seen increasing share of Non-Voter users till March 2022 but again after this date, the share of users who are also voters on this chain is increasing slightly over time.