Introduction

What is Terra 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 Blockchains includes giving participants roles and accountability, decision rights, incentives, regulatory compliance requirements, and technical design and architecture decisions.

The Terra protocol is a decentralized public blockchain governed by community members. Governance is the democratic process that allows users and validators to make changes to the Terra protocol. Community members submit, vote, and implement proposals. The governance module maintains the logic for all governance activity.

In PoS (Proof Of Stake) chains such as Terra, users who have Staked native chain’s asset ($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 has a 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.

You can see the proposals and their current status (Voting-Period, Deposit Period, Passed, Rejected) at the following link:

Methodology

In this dashboard, I am going to perform a deep analysis of 5 recently executed proposals on Terra governance (at the time of this analysis (Jan. 21, 2023):

• **3796: **ERIS Protocol Revised Grant Proposal
• **3795: **Terra Poker Grant Proposal (Updated)
• **3794: **Terra Poker | Grant Proposal
• **3665: **Contro Protocol Grant Proposal
• **3619: **Phoenix Software Upgrade 2.2.0

For this, I am going to mainly use Flipside’s terra.core.fact_governance_votes table in order to analyze data.

So, In this dashboard, I am going to:

• Compare the average voting and voters’ engagement on the 5 recent Terra proposals vs other executed proposals on this chain.
• Analyze the number of votes, voters & new first-time-ever voters on these proposals.
• Analyze the vote option of voters on these proposals.
• Analyze the validators’ participation in these 5 proposals.
• Analyze the behavior of voters on these proposals.
• Analyze the vote-switching behavior of voters on these 5 proposals.
• ==Bonus: I am going to dig up and compare the text of 2 governance proposals on the Terra chain and provide some suggestions in order to make them stronger or likelier to gather more votes.==

each successful TX_ID in terra.core.fact_governance_votes table represents a successfully executed vote on the related proposal. the ID of the proposal is extractable from the proposal_id column and the wallet address of the voter is extractable from the voter column.

Vote Options:

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

Identifying Validator Votes:

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 addresses and sync them with the wallet address of the voter on the proposal.

Unfortunately, there is not any fact_validators table in Terra. So. Considering that validators vote with their address, not operator_address (terrasvaloper…) there is almost a similarity between the first left characters (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, considering the above methodology, we can identify the validator voting address with some help terra.core.fact_msg_attributes where attribute_key is 'source_validator'

Vote-Switching:

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.

On the left charts, we can see a comparison of average engagement on recent 5 proposals on Terra vs other proposals on this chain.

As we see, the average number of votes and voters on these 5 proposals is slightly less than other Terra proposals. this means these proposals have not attracted the attention of many voters compared to the other proposals.

But, on the right chart, we can see that the participation of validators on the recent 5 proposals was more than other proposals on Terra.

According to the above charts, among these 5 recently launched proposals on Terra, the proposal ID #3796 (which is related to the ERIS protocol) has the highest engagement and on the other hand proposal id #3794 (Terra Poker Grant Proposal) has the least participation ratio. But, we can see that proposal ID #3794 has the highest validators’ participation ratio among other recently launched proposals and the proposal id #3796 has the least participation of validators.

On the pie-chart, we can see the majority of voters on these proposals have only voted on 1 single proposal and there is not any voter that have participated on all of these 5 recent proposals on Terra.

On the left chart, We can see the proposal ID #3796 has attracted the most number of new first-time-ever voters. There were 88 wallets who have voted for the first time ever in Terra proposals on proposal id #3796. here too, the proposal id #3794 has the least participation of new-first-time-ever voters.

On the left charts, we can obviously see that the majority of voters (and also validator voters) on the 3 passed proposals have voted YES and the majority of voters (and also validator voters) on proposal IDs #3794 & #3795 (2 rejected proposals) have voted NO.

The acceptance of proposal #ID 3619 is more than other proposals since the share of YES votes on this proposal is more than others.

According to the left chart, the average daily participation on proposal ID #3796 is also more than other proposals.

Also, we can see the daily number of votes and active voters on these proposals over time on the right chart.

All proposals’ voting-period lasted for almost 8 days.

Also the high engagement of voting activity on Proposal #3796 is clearly visible on the chart.

Voters Stats

According to the left charts, the average number of votes per voter on proposal id #3795 is more than other proposals means there was more number of votes per voter on this proposal.

But, the average number of votes per validator voters on proposal #3796 is more than others.

Also, we can see the majority of voters on all proposals have only executed 1 vote. However, the number of voters with more than 1 vote on proposal id #3796 is more than others.

On the left, we can see the top 10 voters with the most number of votes on the recently 5 executed proposals on Terra.

As we see, the wallet address terra1tu0lx26n8vjkpfjrjdyktnvt3wqfdtup65lyj5 which is not a validator has executed the most number of votes (9) on these proposals.

But, 7 of these 10 most-active voters are validators (their labels are visible on X axis) and only 3 of them are non-validators.

Vote-Switching Analysis

On the above left chart, we can see the average vote-switching activity on the recent 5 proposals on Terra is more than other launched proposals on this chain which shows the uncertainly behavior of voters on these proposals.

Also, we can see the vote-switching ratio on proposal id #3794 is more than other recently 5 proposals on Terra but the vote-switching share of validators on proposal id #3796 is more than others.

And on the left chart, we can see the behavior of vote-switchers on these recently 5 launched proposals on Terra chain for both voters and validator voters.

in Below table, you can see an overview of 5 recently executed proposals on Terra and also the URL link to the related page to them on Terra station platform.

As we see, the type of proposals #3796, #3795 and #3665 was CommunityPoolSpend while proposal #3794 type was Text-type and 3619 is related to Software upgrade.

Moreover, we can see 2 out of these 5 recently launched proposals (#3795 & #3794) have been rejected by voters and both of them are related to the Terra Poker Grant proposal.

Vote Choices

Daily Analysis

Summary and Conclusion

Based on the above analysis of 5 recent proposals on Terra: #3796 (Passed), #3795 (Rejected), #3794 (Rejected), #3665 (Passed) & #3616 (Passed):

• The engagement ratio of voters on the recent 5 proposals on Terra was below the average engagement rate of other executed proposals on this chain.
• Proposal #3796 had the highest participation of the Terra voters’ community while proposal #3794 had the least engagement.
• The majority of voters on these proposals have only voted on one of the proposals. There was not even a single voter who participated in all of these 5 proposals.
• The participation ratio of validators on proposal #3794 (the least successful proposal) was more than other proposals. Proposal id #3796 (the most successful proposal) had the least validators’ participation ratio.
• Proposal #3619 had the highest acceptance (highest share of YES votes) and proposal #3794 had the highest share of NO votes.
• Proposal #3796 has attracted the most number of new-first-time-ever votes on Terra chain to itself.
• The vote-switching behavior on these recent 5 proposals was more than average vote-switching actions on other Terra proposals.
• Proposal id #3794 had the highest share of vote-switchers (overall) while the proposal id #3796 had the highest share of validator vote-switchers.
• Among the top 10 voters on these proposals, 7 of them are validators but the top 3 voters are non-validators.
• the validator “TTLG Money” had the highest participation in these 5 recent proposals.

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

Bonus: Comparing The Text of 2 Governance Proposals on Terra and Some Suggestions In Order To Make Them Stronger or Likelier to Gather More Votes

For this part, I am going to compare the most & also the least successful recently executed proposals on Terra which are proposal id #3796 (best) & #3794 (worst):

Full Details About Proposal #3796 (Link)

Full Details About Proposal #3794 (Link)

Both of these proposals are about requesting funds to advance their projects, and by the way, the team of both projects, in my opinion, explained the purpose of the project and the necessary items to the community (potential investors) well and with their best efforts.

1- Necessity: The important thing is that Proposal 3796 points to something that can be very useful for the community and Terra chain, but it may be said that the project that proposal 3794 talks about (despite being very good) is not so necessary and maybe we can say It doesn't matter if it exists or not!

2- Transparency & Perspective: in my opinion, proposal #3796 is much more transparent and straightforward than proposal #3794 with its community. This will make the community (at least if I were a voter!) trust proposal #3796 more and be more willing to allocate its capital to it. For example, in the provided link, you can see that Proposal 3796 has described its future plans in detail along with the schedule, drawn very complete and user-friendly diagrams in order to be able to best convey its purpose and roadway to society (potential investors). But in proposal 3794, despite the complete explanation given about the current conditions of the project and its achievements, we do not see a vision of the future of the project and the goal that the team behind it is pursuing, and this creates a sense of doubt and uncertainty in the investor and causes him/her not to trust this team to allocate his capital.

However, we can say that proposal #3794 has done better than #3796 on the financial transparency and methods that distribute funds, and maybe if proposal #3796 was so honest, it could even be more successful in passing with more YES votes.

3- Reward Granting To Investors: Proposal #3796 has its own investors to share the benefits (income) of the project with the community (investors) and give them a fee (as an investment reward!) but in proposal #3794 we don't see that and that and that’s another reason for reducing investor desire on proposal #3794.

4- Previous Failure Experience: What is very important and perhaps not easily realized is that proposal #3796 has already presented another previous proposal about the same project which was unsuccessful and Rejected! But proposal #3794 is the first proposal attempt of the team for The subject of this project. So we can say that the proposal 3796 project team has got some useful experiences and lessons from has previously failed proposal and tried the deficiencies offered with the aim of attracting more confidence than the community and investors (and we saw that was successful)

5- Team Feedback to Community: on the page related to proposal #3794, we see that there have been many more discussions and comments, and it seems that the project team is regularly informing the community about the events that occur in the project, but we do not see this feedback and activity in proposal #3796 and its team.

6- Influence of Other Early-Voters: This is not a technical subject but in my opinion, some of the uncertain voters that do not have any idea about their vote choice for a published proposal, will take a look into other voters’ options who have voted earlier. As we can see in the 2 below charts, the majority of voters on proposal #3794 voted NO on the first day of proposal publishment. So, in the next days, we can see very less (even zero votes) with the YES option to this proposal.

While on proposal #3796, we can see that the majority of early voters on this proposal voted YES on the first day of publishment, and during the following days, we can see an increasing share of YES Votes compared to the other options over time.