Infamous 82 Cosmos Hub

https://app.flipsidecrypto.com/dashboard/infamous-82-cosmos-hub-K9ihIf

Why Prop #82 was rejected?

A simple majority (greater than 50%) of the participating voting power must back the **'**Yes' vote during the 14-day voting period, but actually was 47,51%

Less than 33.4% of participating voting power votes 'NoWithVeto', but as a result we see 37,9%

Why did it happen?

Some of the reason wer:

First of all Prop #82 includes a lot of things. And if some changes can be agreed, then others may have required more discussion and assessment. It's hard to vote “Yes” if you don't quite agree with some of the points in the proposal
A lot of voters was disagree with revamped tokenomics for ATOM. Some voters count that a drastic shift in the monetary policy wasn't necessary

WHAT ELSE?

Prop No. 82 significantly influenced the participation of voters in other votings. The graph shows how the number of voters increased during prop #82 and how much more their number is compared to what it was before
The vote "No with veto" indicates the high involvement of the people who voted, this vote is much stronger than the usual "no". Good sign

GOVERNANCE IN COSMOS HUB

The Cosmos Hub ("Gaia") has an on-chain governance mechanism for passing text proposals, changing consensus parameters, and spending funds from the community pool

Link for more information about Cosmos Hub governance

What determines whether or not a governance proposal passes?

There are four criteria:

A minimum deposit of 64 ATOM is required for the proposal to enter the voting period
- anyone may contribute to this deposit
- the deposit must be reached within 14 days (this is the deposit period)
A minimum of 40% of the network's voting power (quorum) is required to participate to make the proposal valid
A simple majority (greater than 50%) of the participating voting power must back the 'Yes' vote during the 14-day voting period
Less than 33.4% of participating voting power votes 'NoWithVeto'

Currently, the criteria for submitting and passing/failing all proposal types is the same.

How is voting tallied?

Voting power is determined by stake weight at the end of the 14-day voting period and is proportional to the number of total ATOMs participating in the vote.
Only bonded ATOMs count towards the voting power for a governance proposal. Liquid ATOMs will not count toward a vote or quorum.
Inactive validators can cast a vote, but their voting power (including the backing of their delegators) will not count toward the vote if they are not in the active set when the voting period ends.

METHODOLOGY

I took data on actual votes from the cosmos.core.fact_msg_attribute table.

I found the transaction id using the filters: MSG_TYPE = 'proposal_vote' , ATTRIBUTE_KEY in ('proposal_id') , TX_SUCCEEDED = 'TRUE', ATTRIBUTE_VALUE = 82
From the same table, I selected which vote was cast (column ATTRIBUTE_VALUE:option), filtered the table by the following parameters: MSG_TYPE = 'proposal_vote' , attribute_key = 'option' and TX_SUCCEEDED = 'TRUE'
It turned out that in the same transaction, one voter could vote in several votings at once, so I combined transaction IDs by UNIQUE_KEY. The row with the number of the transaction id and row with the vote have UNIQUE_KEY the same except for the last two characters, so I deleted them
In order to find out the number of the wallet that voted, I joined with the cosmos.core.fact_transactions table using the TX_FROM column

\

BALANCE

Since only staked ATOM tokens have weight in the vote count, it was necessary to deduct them. To do this, I used the table cosmos.core.fact_msg_attributes , namely ATTRIBUTE_KEY = 'amount' and the attribute ATTRIBUTE_KEY = 'validator' where MSG_TYPE was equal to create_validator, delegate and redelegate. The amount that was specified in create_validator, delegate and redelegate (as the destination of the delegate) was taken as income; redelegate (as the source of the delegate) was taken as outcome. Also, the volume of ATOM tokens i took at the time the voting ends, that is, on October 14

FILTER TABLE

By the rules, some can vote, but their votes don't count for some reason, like if they're in jail or if their stake rating number is below 125

To do this, I used the osmosis.core.fact_validators table, where this information is stored. The wallet numbers in this table start with "osmo", so I initially corrected the address numbers as well.

I also filtered out those who voted multiple times and left only their last vote

COSMOS HUB

The Cosmos Hub is the first of thousands of interconnected blockchains that will eventually comprise the Cosmos Network. The primary token of the Cosmos Hub is the ATOM, but the Hub will support many tokens in the future.

With ATOM, you have the superpower to contribute to the security and governance of the Cosmos Hub. Delegate your ATOM to one or more of the 125 validators on the Cosmos Hub blockchain to earn more ATOM through Proof-of-Stake. You can also vote with your ATOM to influence the future of the Cosmos Hub through on-chain governance proposals.

link on Tweet

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
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.

The purpose of internalizing this aspect of the consensus protocol into the governance process is to discourage validators from relying on collusion and censorship tactics to influence voting outcomes.
ABSTAIN - You wish to contribute to quorum but you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal.

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

Prop #82 finished November, 14 it was rejected after more than 1/3 of voters chose "NoWithVeto".

On this dashboard we will analyze this proposal, see in detail what happened on voting days, and also how this proposal affected the voting that took place after it

ATOM 2.0 is a vision piece and counterpart to the original 2017 Cosmos whitepaper that articulates a new, integrated vision and direction for the Cosmos Hub.

It proposes a major expansion to Cosmos Hub, the core blockchain that sits at the centre of the Cosmos ecosystem. It is an app-chain built for facilitating the connectivity between other app-chains within Cosmos. The Cosmos Hub is secured using the ATOM token. Presently, interconnectivity is driven through the use of IBC and transfers between various Cosmos app-chains.

The 2.0 whitepaper expanded the role of the Cosmos Hub and created a new interchain security outline that would allow other chains built on Cosmos to leverage the existing security of the Cosmos Hub. It made suggestions that would have significantly changed the tokenomics of ATOM and outlined building two new tools within Cosmos, the Interchain Allocator, and the Interchain Scheduler.

To begin with, there is the results of voting in ATOM. The value in ATOM depends not only on the number of votes, but also on the voting power, which is affected by the amount of staked tokens (liquidity does not count)

VOTES

VOTE SWITCHING

WALLET SIZE

IMPACT OF PROP #82 ON OTHER VOTES

REDELEGATE

FIRST-TIME VOTERS

CONCLUSIONS

In total, 58.5 voters took part in the voting, of which 2.09% decided to abstain, 78.6% voted YES, NO WITH VETO - 16.9%, NO - 2.36%
In the first week of voting, you mainly see YES votes, then the situation changes and more and more votes fall on NO WITH VETO
13.8% of all voters are first-time voters, the percentage of votes is about the same as for those who vote not for the first time
About 4k voters (6.95% of the total) changed their original vote. In the majority of cases (84.3% of all voters who changed their vote) there was a replacement of the original vote with NO WITH VETO. 73% changed their vote from YES to NO WITH VETO
When counting votes, not only the number of votes is important, but also their weight, which depends on the number of staked ATOM tokens on the voting end day. Informal Systems staked the most tokens and voted YES. Further, in the top 10 in terms of the number of ATOMs, there were wallets that voted NO WITH VETO. In other words, those who had quite a lot of weight due to staked ATOM voted for NO WITH VETO
Оn voting days (especially at the end of week 1 and on the last days of voting), you can see that part of the ATOM has been redelegated. Imperator.co and 0base.vc received the most redelegations and voted NO WITH VETO
Prop No. 82 significantly influenced the participation of voters in other votings. The graph shows how the number of voters increased during prop #82 and how much more their number is compared to what it was before