Welcome to Osmosis

• Osmosis is a Layer-1 Blockchain built on the Cosmos framework, operates a DEX and the $OSMO is the native token which serves as governance and staking for users.
• $OSMO holders can delegate their $OSMO to validators, who add these tokens to their slashable bond. Delegators receive staking rewards, less the validator's commission - Osmosis Docs.
  • Validators are Osmosis blockchain miners responsable for verifying transactions on the blockchain. The top 130 validators with the highest total $OSMO stake can participate in consensus.
• Staked $OSMO holders (Normal users and validators) are eligible to vote on governance proposals.

In this Dashboard you’ll know about governance in Osmosis, specifically the proposal #362, what it is?, their controversy and the reason of the voters changing their votes, also metrics related to voters/votes of this proposal, and comparison with others proposal.

Governance in Osmosis & Voting Options Explained

• Osmosis Governance Zone is the official website where users can discuss everything related to Osmosis, their governance controls parameter changes, inflation dynamics and incentives for pools. Osmosis has some of the most active governance of any chain and participating is your right as a delegator.

• Vote options for proposals - from Osmosis Lab 101:

  • Yes- You agree with and accept the terms of the proposal
  • No- You disagree with all of or part of the proposal but are open to a revised future proposal
  • No with Veto- You believe the proposal to be spam or will bring harm to the network and/or the proposer is a malicious actor. Generally implies you are not open to revisiting the proposal in the future.
  • Abstain- You don’t have enough information to make a decision and would rather let the rest of the network decide.

  Note: Not voting is not the same as abstaining. Not voting can lead to proposals failing to reach quorum.

Did you know?

• Osmosis Scientist is named George Wosmongton

Osmosis Grant Program & Proposal #362 - What is the ruckus?

• The goal of the Osmosis Grants Program is to improve the long-term utility of Osmosis and to create a robust ecosystem of incentivized contributors.
• Grants will be awarded to teams and individuals who are building value-add projects, such as analytics, tooling, infrastructure, and ecosystem projects that are complementary to the core AMM.

Proposal #362 Osmosis Grants Program (OGP) renewal disccussion was all about Reverie the company behind this program, in this proposal they’re looking to extend the duration of the program by 6 months and a raise their operation cost. The company is composed by 4 members (From January Article), and they already set grants programs for the DeFi blue-chips Compound and dYdX.

Most of the No-voters were already angry with Reverie, Validator ‘White Marlin staking’ in the discussion accused Reverie Request for Proposal (RFP) method as broken and use this post (Fund Mismanagement & Deficit Costs of dYdX Grants Program) to based their claims against Reverie, Normal voters claims that Reverie is a “Scam” and their transparency on how they’re managing their funds is put in the debate.

Because of the scandal of this proposal, the proposal was updated (More details below). And when the voting started, there was a period of time with a lot of votes with the “no option” but in the end this proposal was acepted and now is time to see how Reverie can change the opinion of their opposition, with the Osmosis Grant Program v2.

Proposal #362 - Summary and Updates marked

• The Osmosis Grants Program ("OGP") was created a little over six months ago.
• Check out our retroactive reports to see all of the great work the OGP has funded to date. (Updated the link redirect to Q2 report instead of Q1)
• Going forward, the OGP will release monthly transparency reports, grantee updates, a live grants dashboard, and other communication efforts. (This was added in the update)
• This proposal aims to renew the OGP for an additional 12 months. 
• During the duration of the 12 month contract, governance can cancel the OGP and Reverie’s involvement at any point. (This was added in the update)
• As the OGP is still well-funded, no additional funding for the program is being requested as part of this proposal.
• Reverie will continue acting as the Program Lead, with support from seven reviewers who sit on the multi-sig.    
• We propose a revised compensation structure for the Program Lead, Reverie, including $55,000 a month in USDC, and 25,000 OSMO a month. (USDC Decreases from $70,000 after the update)
• As part of v2, the OGP will incubate new subDAOs focused on incentives, new assets, and other areas. 

So after the proposal update, Reverie receives -20.000 USDC Monthly, can be canceled anytime by governance and transparency reports are mandatory.

Vote Behaviour Analysis

Most normal users choose YES as their final vote, and less than 15% choose other options.

Validators votes were pretty even, except by NO WITH VETO option which has the less number of votes in both categories.

Most normal users change their YES Votes to other options, change from NO also is really high.

Most Validators also change their YES Votes to other options.

Abstain Votes are favorite by Validators, whereas Normal users prefers absolute options such as NO or YES.

Proposal #362 General Metrics

Voters & Vote

• From the 22.3k voters there are:
  • 22,174 Normal Voters
  • 94 Validators
• From the 24.2k votes there are:
  • 24,103 Normal Votes
  • 125 Validators Votes
• Votes>Voters means people changing their vote.

Looking at the total of Votes and Voters, YES was the option most choosed but also the most changed by users (because of the 20.5k votes there are only 18.9k voters).

Voters of Proposal #362 by Osmo Balance

• The average Balance of Voters is 307, For Voters.
  • Most of the Voters have 10 $OSMO or less in their wallet.
• The average balance of Voter which change their vote is 2960.
  • Again most of the voters have less than 10 $OSMO.
  • But in second place are wallets with 100 to 1000 $OSMO
• It’s seems that wallets with 10 to 100 $OSMO prefer to vote once.

Again the voters which change their votes twice or more are usually users with 10 $OSMO or less, or with 100 to 1000 $OSMO.

Voters by total votes

• Most Voters vote once (21k)

• 851 Voters vote twice.

• The most number of votes is from

  osmo16798cwveu2pch9js2ptfy4u6td9zme3mh95n86 with 17 votes.

• Nobody vote 15 or 16 times.

• Most of the top 10 Voters votes more than 9 times

• White Marlin Staking (Opposition) vote 4 times, and Notional (Supporter) vote 4 times also.
  • These claims comes from their Posts in the Discussion.
• Cosmotation (#1 Validator) votes 3 times, and other 3 validators also.
• Most Validators Vote 1 time.

• User osmo1…3f3d was the only one which vote all options.
• Only 15 users vote 3 options.
• Most users only vote 1 Option.

• No Validator vote the 4 Options.
• 69 Validators Vote 1 option.
• Although Notional (4 votes) votes (3 Options) was present in the top 10 again, White Marlin staking (4 votes) wasn’t present.
  • Is very probably that White Marlin alternate between the 2 No Options.
  • At one point Notional/Cosmostation/Ping were voting NO/NO with Veto

Votes Over Time and Validators Final Votes

At the end of November 16 and until Half of November 17, there was an increase of NO option.

At the start of the voting and 1 day before the end there is an increase in Abstain Votes.

Most YES votes were the day after the voting, so most governance users are proactive voting as soon as possible in the differents proposals.

Only a few of validators vote in the last day.

The rest of the days a similar amount of validators choose their final vote.

Abstain Votes are more frequent in the last days.

Proposal #362 vs Others Proposals

The Number of Votes/Voters seems to be correlated with the latest/newer proposals, but didn’t make an impact in participation such as proposal #353 or #350. BUT the user participation is still higher in proposal #362 than proposals before or after (#357 to #365)

Most of the Voters participate asap in the proposals, Although the proposal started on November 14, this was hours before the day ends, so most participation is still concentrated in the first 24 hours after a proposal voting starts.

Most activity is concentrated in 1 or 2 consecutive days, but during proposal #362 User participation was concentrated in 3 Consecutive days if we consider the day of November 13, it was 4 consecutive days were User participation was at their highest in Proposal voting.

Summary

• Although there was a lot of discussion regarding Porposal #362, in matter of days the Proposal was updated to include some complaints that the validators claimed.
  • Less money, more transparency and the option to start a new proposal in the following 6 months to cancel the project were the big changes added.
• Most of the Users and Validators vote in the first 24 hours of the voting, Abstained votes were more frequent at the start and the end of the voting process.
• There was an increase in NO votes during Nov 16-17.
• In general Validators prefers to Abstain more than Normal Users, and vote/change their options less.
• Most of the voters and “change option voters” have a volume of less than 10 $OSMO in their wallet.
  • Users with 100 to 1000 $OSMO seems to be more active changing their vote than users with 10 to 100 $OSMO
• The most votes were made by an user 17 times, only 1 user voted the 4 options.

In general YES voters tend to change their vote more than the rest of options.

Methodology

• Made using Flipside Crypto data tables.
  • osmosis.core.fact_governance_votes: To get info about the voters and vote.
  • osmosis.core.dim_vote_options: To get the Description of the Vote (YES/NO/…)
  • osmosis.core.fact_governance_proposal_deposits: To get vote Deposit Info
  • osmosis.core.dim_labels: To get the labels/addresses of the validators
  • osmosis.core.fact_daily_balances: To get info about the wallet balance of voters.
• Credits in their respective SQL

Flipside Question

• Governance in the Cosmos ecosystem has been a hot topic of late - first with Cosmos Hub 82 and now in Osmosis. Osmosis Prop 362 is a vote to decide the fate of the Osmosis Grants Program (OGP). Contention aside, there have been many points and counterpoints, AND a ton of vote switching.
• Let's take a look at the governance behavior surrounding Proposal 362. On the outside, it seems that a ton of voters have been switching their votes - is this actually true, or is it just big whales/validators causing these swings? What is the average wallet size (in OSMO) of the people voting? Of the people who have changed their vote more than once? Compare and contrast voting behavior of validators and average users in this context.
• Further, is Prop 362 significantly different than other proposals from an engagement perspective? Analyze voting for 362 vs. other recent governance proposals.