db_img

    What is Cosmos?

    Cosmos is an ecosystem of independent interconnected blockchains built using developer-friendly application components and connected with ground-breaking IBC (Inter-Blockchain Communication) protocol. With Cosmos, developers can choose to build entirely autonomous application-specific blockchains that can easily interconnect. This means that, unlike with other leading blockchains today, they are no longer forced to exist as smart contracts on someone else's chain. They can opt-out of high transaction fees and network congestion, make their own rules, and scale for mainstream adoption.

    At the core of the Internet of Blockchains is the Cosmos Hub, the economic center of Cosmos, secured by its native ATOM token. The Cosmos Hub was the first blockchain to launch on the Cosmos network—the first of hundreds of thousands of blockchains, working with one another and enriched by their connections. The underlying technology behind Cosmos is the Tendermint Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) consensus algorithm, which is designed to ensure finality, order consistency, and optional availability.

    ==Token application:==

    The ATOM token is the native token of the Cosmos Hub. In return for securing the Hub's services by staking ATOM, transaction fees and staking rewards are distributed to the Cosmos Hub.

    Cosmos Governance

    The Cosmos Hub ("Gaia") 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. It also provides a place for collaborating on draft proposals in plain text on Github.

    If you'd like to draft a proposal, start here. See the contents below for more background on the governance system, the different types of proposals, and how to submit one.

    Source :

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

    • Proposer cosmos1et60e8cmehzcdhyluk0lnkzzye5jj7zj3a00cn

    • Initial Deposit 1.000000ATOM

    • Total Deposit 64.000000ATOM

    • Voting Start 2022-10-31 15:03:04

    • Voting End 2022-11-14 15:03:04

    • Type Text

    • 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.

      The Cosmos Hub v1.2

      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.



      Source :

      \

    db_img

    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. 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.

    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
    db_img
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...

    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.

    And 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.

    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...

    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.

    Loading...

    on the right chart 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.

    Loading...
    Loading...

    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.

    Conclusion

    • 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.
    • 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.
    db_img

    The codes of this Dashboard are taken from Ali3N You can check him dashboard for more information.