Overview 👀 ~ 5 min read


    In this dashboard, I will answer this question from Flipside Crypto:

    Governance in the Cosmos Hub has gotten spicy, to say the least. Despite gaining the support of some of the most influential names in the space, Prop #82 was rejected after more than 1/3 of voters chose "NoWithVeto".

    Take a look at governance behavior surrounding Proposal #82 - specifically first time voters and vote switching. Is it possible to identify any key "swing voters" (ie ATOM whales or influential validators) that really turned the tide of the vote? Were any of them first-time voters? \n

    What is the average wallet size (in ATOM) of the people voting? Of the people who changed their vote? Further, is Prop #82 significantly different than other proposals from an engagement perspective? Analyze voting for Cosmos #82 vs. other recent governance proposals in the Hub. Has overall governance participation increased or decrease since Prop #82? \n

    Finally, have ATOM holders re-delegated their staked ATOM as a result of the vote? Highlight any interesting patterns in re-delegation activity.

    db_img

    Methodology 🧠


    To solve this question

    I got ATOM token input and output per wallet from cosmos.core.fact_transfers table Then I used the cosmos.core.fact_msg_attributes table for voting transactions First, I tried to make the date wallet address and the vote transaction in one table, then I needed the address of the validators, but the problem was that the addresses were written differently in the cosmos.core.fact_msg_attributes table. The addresses of validators were like this: cosmosvaloper1sjllsnramtg3ewxqwwrwjxfgc4n4ef9u2lcnj0 The voting address of validators was like this: cosmos1sjllsnramtg3ewxqwwrwjxfgc4n4ef9u0tvx7u In order to separate these validators, first I removed valoper from the string of letters and then I also removed the last 6 letters, the rest of the letters were the same. I used the following query for this.

      SELECT concat ('cosmos', SUBSTR(attribute_value , -39)) AS address,
      substring(address,1,len(address)-6)as cosmos_likly_address ,
      attribute_value AS validator 
      FROM cosmos.core.fact_msg_attributes  
      WHERE attribute_value ilike 'cosmosvaloper%'
    

    How did I integrate the address now? The answer is in the following order:

        CASE 
        WHEN substring(cosmos_address_voted,1,len(cosmos_address_voted)-6) IN (SELECT cosmos_likly_address FROM base_validator_address) THEN 'Validator'
    

    That's how I voted to vote Validators

    I wanted to have vote_power to improve these findings, but I tried 2 queries and could not get the answer before 900 seconds.

    Introduction 💭


    What is ATOM 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.

    Is ATOM coin a good investment?

    ATOM has seen significant gains since the start of 2021. From the beginning of the year to September 16, 2021, the price of ATOM rose by 426 percent, according to CoinMarketCap data. Cosmos also hit an all-time high of 44.70 USD on September 20, 2021. October 2021 is also an exciting time for ATOM token holders.

    Chart & Analyze 🧪📊

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

    🕵️‍♀️ observations

    • Observations show that in the early days of voting, there are many positive votes and less negative votes,
    • but after a few days, on November 6, almost 311 NoWithVeto votes were given suddenly, and since then, the number of NoWithVeto votes has increased day by day. Increased
    • A total of 42.83 thousand positive votes,
    • 9.36 thousand NoWithVeto votes,
    • 2.22 thousand negative votes
    • and 1.66 thousand Abstain votes have been received by this proposal.
    • But more than 70% have voted positively, how can the proposal be rejected? Here there is something called Voting Power, the people whose account balance is more, this percentage of their Voting Power is also more.
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...

    swing voters

    🕵️‍♀️ observations

    • The graphs above show a list of users' votes from the left to the right of the last vote Various votes can be seen,
    • many of them even voted 3 times and then turned negative
    • But we concluded above that not only the number of votes is important,
    • but Voting Power is also very important
    • Now let's see what votes those who have high Voting Power like whales and validators have given!
    • Whales and validators have given high percentages of negative votes In fact, many of them have changed their vote to NoWithVeto, which can be one of the factors influencing the rejection of this proposal.
    • Whales and validators have given high percentages of negative votes In fact, many of them have changed their vote to NoWithVeto, which can be one of the factors influencing the rejection of this proposal.
    • In general, according to the graph below, the NoWithVeto vote has been very popular among whales and validators after the positive vote. Especially the whales that have more than 1 million dollars available

    is Prop #82 significantly different than other proposals from an engagement perspective?

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

    🕵️‍♀️ observations

    • Observations show that the interaction of users in voting has become much less after proposal 82
    • This proposal has the highest number of votes and voters in 2022 In the last 20 days
    • , the activity of users in voting has become much less
    • 4.22% of voters have not voted in any proposal so far

    What is the average wallet size (in ATOM) of the people voting?

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

    🕵️‍♀️ observations

    • In terms of the ATOM balance of users' wallets, as predicted, users who have changed their vote have 3 times more balance than users who have not changed their vote,
    • and this increases the voting power of users who have changed their vote. And as a result, they can change the voting results in general

    ATOM holders re-delegated their staked ATOM as a result of the vote?

    🕵️‍♀️ observations

    • On the days of re-delegated and delegated voting among users, there has been a significant increase in one day on November 7 On this day, more than 8 million users' ATOM tokens have been re-delegated
    • This is while the number of transactions has not increased significantly

    Conclusion 🎉

    1. on November 6, almost 311 NoWithVeto votes were given suddenly, and since then, the number of NoWithVeto votes has increased day by day. Increased
    2. Whales and validators have given high percentages of negative votes In fact, many of them have changed their vote to NoWithVeto, which can be one of the factors influencing the rejection of this proposal.
    3. interaction of users in voting has become much less after proposal 82
    4. 4.22% of voters have not voted in any proposal so far
    5. What is the average wallet size (in ATOM) of the people voting?
      • average wallet size = 680 $Atom
      • people who changed their vote = 2007 $ATOM
    6. more than 8 million $ATOM tokens have been re-delegated on November 7

    Contact data 👋


    -> the writer :sajjadsmoke -> discord : Sajjadiii#5567


    Thanks for reading !

    Appendix 🤝


    The solution of this question and the queries are completely used from the filipside database

    The construction of the dashboard was also used from the site

    app.flipsidecrypto.com/velocity, which belongs to flipside

    db_img