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 Governance

[The Cosmos Hub ("Gaia")](https://hub.cosmos.network/main/governance/#:\~:text=The%20Cosmos%20Hub%20(%22Gaia%22,and%20proposing%20them%20on%2Dchain.) has an on-chain governance mechanism for passing text proposals, changing consensus parameters, and spending funds from the community pool. This repository provides background information on these different kinds of proposals and best-practices for drafting them and proposing them on-chain.

Rather than depositing ATOM, participants in this governance stage are actually voting Yes, No, No With Veto or Abstain. If a proposal reaches quorum or the minimum threshold defined by the protocol of votes it will pass to the next stage for tallying. Only staked tokens are eligible to be used for governance voting.

Proposal #82 | ATOM 2.0: A new vision for Cosmos Hub

• Proposer: cosmos1et60e8cmehzcdhyluk0lnkzzye5jj7zj3a00cn
• Initial Deposit: 1 $ATOM
• Total Deposit: 64 $ATOM
• Voting Start: 2022-10-31 15:03:04
• Voting End: 2022-11-14 15:03:04
• Submit Time: 2022-10-31 14:55:58
• Deposit End Time: 2022-11-14 14:55:58

Summary

We propose a new Cosmos Hub vision document, a counterpart to the 2017 paper which focused primarily on the network of IBC-connected chains. With the creation of the Cosmos Stack (Tendermint, IBC, and SDK) and the development of key technologies for secure economic scaling (Interchain Security and Liquid Staking), the original vision of the Hub has been fulfilled. This document marks the transition to the next phase of the Cosmos Hub as an infrastructure service platform, and a renewed role for ATOM as preferred collateral within the Cosmos Network. It describes two pieces of app-specific functionality, the Interchain Scheduler and Interchain Allocator, which together form a flywheel for accelerating interchain growth. The Interchain Scheduler is a cross-chain block space marketplace, which generates revenues from cross-chain MEV. These revenues are used by the Interchain Allocator to capitalize new Cosmos chains, foster interchain collaboration, and thereby expand the total addressable market of the Scheduler. This paper also describes a new issuance regime optimized for Liquid Staking, where after a 36 month transition period, exponential issuance is reduced to a constant amount of ATOM issued per month. To administer the proposed plan, the paper describes the formation of Cosmos Councils, domain-specialized entities that carry out development and operations. Cosmos Councils together form the Cosmos Assembly, a body that is accountable to ATOM holders, responsible for setting yearly goals, resourcing, and administering work undertaken on behalf of Cosmos Hub.

We have included the paper below in its entirety for the community’s consideration.

Governance Votes

The following items summarize the voting options and what it means for this proposal:

• YES - You approve of and wish to ratify the contents of the proposed paper
• NO - You don’t approve of the contents of paper. Please indicate why on the Cosmos Hub forum.
• NO WITH VETO - A ‘NoWithVeto’ vote indicates a proposal either (1) is deemed to be spam, i.e., irrelevant to Cosmos Hub, (2) disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or (3) violates or encourages violation of the rules of engagement as currently set out by Cosmos Hub governance. If the number of ‘NoWithVeto’ votes is greater than a third of total votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.
• ABSTAIN - You wish to contribute to quorum but you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal.

Final Status: REJECTED 🚫

Methodology

In this dashboard, We are going to analyze the activity over Proposal #82 on Cosmos Hub.

For this purpose, Firstly, I am going to provide some overall data about voting and voters on this proposal.

Then, I am going to compare the voting behavior of Proposal #82 vs other recent proposals on Cosmos Hub. (I have excluded the proposal IDs #88 & #89 from the results because at the time of this analysis (11th December), these 2 proposals are not done yet and are in their voting period)

Then, I am going to analyze the vote-changing behavior on Proposal #82 and analyze the voters who have changed their votes by their wallet balance, first-time voter or regular identity and etc.

Moreover, I am going to check the $ATOM redelegation activity on Cosmos validators (especially by proposal #82 voters) during the proposal #82 time period.

For this analysis, The main table that I am going to use is cosmos.core.fact_msg_attributes. Firstly, I have extracted the proposal voting transactions by filtering the attribute_key to proposal_id. the attribute value of this table returns the actual #ID of proposal. Then, I have extracted the voter(s) by filtering attribute_key to 'spender'. Then, I have extracted the vote option of each vote by filtering the attribute_key to ‘option’. There are 4 different vote options for each proposal:

• Vote Option #1: YES
• Vote Option #2: Abstain
• Vote Option #3: No
• Vote Option #4: No With Veto

Vote-changing behavior is extracted by joining 2 different tables of voters on Proposal #82 while their voters are the same but their vote_option and block_timestamp (vote date) are different.

For extracting the $ATOM balance of users, (since there is not still a balance_table on Cosmos) I have used cosmos.core.fact_transfers table and calculated the total received and sent volume of $ATOM users. The net volume (total received - total sent) would be the $ATOM balance of the user.

For extracting the redelegation activity, Firstly I have extracted the transaction_ids of redelegate actions by using cosmos.core.fact_msg_attributes table and filtering the msg_type to ‘redelegate’. by filtering attribute_key to ‘amount’ and attribute_value to ‘%uatom%’ we get the actual $ATOM volume of redelegation action and by filtering the attribute_key to ‘spender’ , we can extract the delegator wallet address from attribute_value column.

Moreover, I am just going to consider Successful votes for this analysis (tx_status = 'SUCCEEDED') and also filtered only results that their vote option is not null (to ensure that vote action has actually happened)

Proposal #82 Overall Stats

Based on the above data, there were total 58.4k voters on proposal #82 who have executed 70.5k vote transactions. Also, the total deposit volume of this proposal was 64 $ATOM deposited by 2 unique depositors (1 $ATOM is initial deposit).

Moreover on the left chart, we can see that the majority of voters on proposal #82 have the experience of voting on Cosmos proposals before proposal #82. Howoever, 4460 (7.63%) of total voters have done their first-ever voting experience on proposal #82.

On these charts, we can see the “YES” votes have the highest share of votes on proposal #82 but however the high number of NO and NO WITH VETO votes have resulted in Rejection of this proposal on Cosmos.

Also, we can see the share of “NO” and “NO WITH VETO” votes by experienced votes (not first time) is more than first-time voters.

Moreover, we can see that most number of voter validators (54% of them) have voted YES for this proposal and almost 32% of them (43) have voted NO WITH VETO which is a high number !

So, we can kinda say the main reason behind the rejection of this proposal are experienced (not first-time) voters and also validators

On the left, we can see the average number of votes per voter is 1.20 which shows the high activity of proposal #82 voters.

Moreover, we can see the wallet address cosmos1atf2cepa30q9ctlh6mylf645aq0a03pw8edle7 was the most active voter on proposal #82 with total of 55 unique vote transactions!

According to the above charts, we can see during the first days of the voting period, the number of “YES” votes were by far more than other vote options. But suddenly after 6th November and especially during 10th - 14th November, number of NO and NO WITH VETO votes have increased significantly to the extent that in the last 4 days of the voting period, the number of NO WITH VETO votes have absorbed the share of YES votes.

We can see that the number of NO votes were more than NO WITH VETO till 5th November, but after 6th November, the total number of NO WITH VETO have totally overtaken NO votes and finally it became the second most chosen vote option after YES vote and resulted in the rejection of this proposal.

Moreover, we can see increasing activity of first-time voters on proposal #82 after 12th November and especially during the 2 last days of the voting period.

Comparison of Proposal #82 vs Other Recent Cosmos Hub Proposals

as mentioned earlier, I have excluded proposal IDs #88 & #89 from the results because at the time of this analysis (11th December), these 2 proposals are not done yet and are in their voting period.

On the left and above charts, I have compared the voting engagement around proposal #82 with other recent proposals on the Cosmos hub in terms of number of votes, voters and also deposit volume.

As we see, proposal #82 is one of the most popular proposals on Cosmos Hub and has more voting activity than many proposals but anyway, there are still some proposals such as 69 and 65 and 64 and 66 that have attracted the higher voting engagement than proposal #82.

Moreover, we can see that the governance participation on Cosmos Hub has kinda decreased after proposal #82 since the proposal IDs #83, #84, #86 and #87 has lower engagement activity of so many other proposals such as #82.

For a better and more sensible visualization, I have compared the activity on proposal #82 with the average voting activity of other recent proposals on Cosmos hub.

As we see, in all terms, proposal #82 has the higher engagement than other recent proposals and can be concluded that this proposal is one of the most popular Cosmos hub proposals.

On the above charts, we can see the weekly activity of voting on Cosmos Hub recent proposals over time.

As we see, during the voting-period of proposal #82, the highest activity of participation on cosmos hub proposals has achieved !

But after this timespan, we can see the significant decline in governance participation over time.

In-Depth Voters Analysis (Vote Switching, $ATOM Balance, …)

According to the above and left charts, the majority of voters (more than 92% of them) did not change their vote option after their first vote. But, there are almost 8% of voters who have changed their option after first vote and among these vote-changers, the majority of them have voted with 2 different options (changed their vote once).

There are also few number of vote-changers who have voted with 3 or even 4 different options !

On the left chart, We can see the share of vote-changers among experienced (not first-time) voters is more than first-time voters.

On the left chart, we can see the user address **cosmos14wc97l8zn5mkl825pgshqcy8749qaetdmp0vtq **and also

cosmos1tugm892unf8w2hm0u0pc04xzrmplktgw3gr5jh have changed their vote options more than all other vote-changers (8 time).

Also, with checking these top 10 vote changers, I have realized that none of them are validators.

Based on the left data, the average $ATOM balance of Voters on proposal #82 is 270 $ATOM.

The majority of these voters have 10 - 100 $ATOM in their wallet and there are only 0.2% of total voters who have more than 10000 $ATOM in their wallet which can be called “Whales”. So, the Whales activity on this proposal was not so high.

According to the left data, we can see the $ATOM balance of voters who have changed their vote is more than other regular voters!

So, here is another reason behind the rejection of this proposal since the vote weight of these vote changers (who have mainly switched their vote from YES to NO WITH VETO) is more than other regular voters.

Also, we can see more share of “Whales” on these vote-changers.

There is not much difference between $ATOM balance of vote changers vs $ATOM balance of voters who have changed their vote option more than once.

Also, the share of “Whales” on this group is kinda similar to the regular vote changers and higher than regular voters.

$ATOM Redelegation Activity

According to the left chart, almost 6% of voters on proposal #82, have redelegated their staked $ATOM after voting on proposal #82.

According to the above and left charts, we can see the high redelegation activity (especially in terms of volume) during the proposal #82 voting period compared to the other timespans. we can see a huge high spike of redelegation on 7th November (7th day of voting-period)

Also, we can see the redelegation activity is decreasing over time after the proposal #82 voting period compared to the days and weeks before that and especially during the voting-period of this proposal.

As a more clear visualization, I have calculated the average redelegation activity of $ATOM redelegators on these 3 timespans.

As mentioned above, especially in terms of volume, we can see high redelegation activity during the voting-period of proposal #82 nad after this timepsan, we can see the lowest redelegation activity.

On the above charts, we can see the top 10 source and destination validator of voter redelegators.

We can see that most number and volume of redelegations was from validator address cosmosvaloper196ax4vc0lwpxndu9dyhvca7jhxp70rmcvrj90c (SG-1).

On the other hand, the top destination validator of redelegators in terms of number of users was cosmosvaloper10unx6s0cdqntvrumd5hs07rgd5ytcztqh8etw6 (GATA DAO) and in terms of volume was cosmosvaloper1vvwtk805lxehwle9l4yudmq6mn0g32px9xtkhc (Imperator.co)

Summary and Conclusion

Based on the above analysis:

• Proposal #82 was rejected mainly because of high number of NO WITH VETO votes by voters.
• The majority of voters on Proposal #82 was experienced (not first-time) voters but there were 7.63% of total voters who have experienced their first-ever voting experience on Cosmos Hub on Proposal #82.
• The share of votes with NO and NO WITH VETO choices by non-first-time voters was more than first-time voters so they can be the main reason behind the rejection of proposal #82.
• Most number of Vote Validators on this proposals have voted YES but there were are almost 43% of total voter validators who have voted NO WITH VETO and also 9% who have voted NO. So, this high NO votes of validators can be another main reason behind the rejection of this proposal.
• The majority of NO WITH VETO votes have took place after 6th November and especially during the last 4 days of voting period (11 - 14 November). Also, the highest participation of New First-Time voters have happened on recent days of the voting-period.
• Proposal #82 is one of the most popular proposals among recent Cosmos Hub proposals since its engagement is way more than the average participation on Cosmos Hub proposals. Also during the voting-period of this proposal, the highest engagement of governance participation have achieved.
• The governance participation on Cosmos Hub has decreased significantly after the Proposal #82.
• almost 8% of total proposal #82 voters have changed their vote option after first voting. The majority of these vote-switchers have switched their vote only once but there were also few number of vote-changers who have vote with 3 or even 4 different options !
• The share of vote-changers among experienced (not-first-time) voters was more than first-time voters so here too, the main activity of vote-switching were done by experienced ones.
• The majority of vote-changers (more than 50% of them) have changed their vote from YES to NO WITH VETO and this can be one of the main reasons behind the rejection of this proposal.
• Among the top 10 vote-changers of proposal #82, none of them were validators.
• the $ATOM balance of vote-switchers was way more (almost 2x) than the regular voters. So, this can be another reason behind the rejection of this proposal since we have seen the majority of these vote-changers have changed their vote to NO WITH VETO and their vote weight is more than other regular voters. Also, There was more share of "Whales" among vote-changers than regular voters.
• Almost 6% of voters have redelegated their staked $ATOM after voting on proposal #82.
• Totally, the $ATOM redelegation activity has increased significantly during the voting-period of proposal #82 especially in terms of volume with a huge high spike on 7th November (7th Day of voting-period). On the other hand, redelegation activity has decreased significantly after voting period.
• Most number and volume of redelegations were done from (source) SG-1 validator.
• Most numbers of the redelegations were done to the GATA DAO validator and most volumes were done to Imperator.co Validator.

Discord: Ali3N#8546 Twitter: Alik_110 Tweet Link For This Dashboard:

Based on the above charts, the majority of vote changers (on both first-time and non-first-time voters) have changed their votes from YES to NO WITH VETO !

So, here is one of the main reasons behind the rejection of this Proposal !

Also, the second rank belong to the voters who have changed their vote option from YES toNO!

Totally we can see the majority of these vote-switching actions were done from YES to other choices and thats why this proposal has been rejected !