Try Quests to earn cryptoInfamous 82
Introduction
Cosmos is the network of blockchains. The Cosmos Hub is the first blockchain that will eventually comprise the Cosmos Network. The native token of the Cosmos Hub is the ATOM.
Atom can be used for transaction fees, staking and finally for governance.
The Cosmos Hub has an on-chain governance mechanism for passing text proposals, changing consensus parameters, and spending funds from the community pool. So far, 89 proposals have been voted.
This dashboard focuses on a controversial voting which is proposal #82; ATOM 2.0: A new vision for Cosmos Hub.
Specifically the dashboard investigates what factors contribute in the sudden change in the intention of voters for Yes to No.
Governance Procedure
(source)
What do the voting options mean?
-
Abstain: indicates that the voter is impartial to the outcome of the proposal.
-
Yes: indicates approval of the proposal in its current form.
-
No: indicates disapproval of the proposal in its current form.
NoWithVeto: indicates stronger opposition to the proposal than simply voting 'No'. If the number of 'NoWithVeto' votes is greater than a third of total votes including 'Abstain' votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.
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' \n
Proposal #82
ATOM 2.0: A new vision for Cosmos Hub
- Voting Start 2022-10-31 12:33:04
- Voting End 2022-11-14 12:33:04
- Proposer: cosmos1et60e8cmehzcdhyluk0lnkzzye5jj7zj3a00cn \n
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.
- 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)
\n
Voting Overview
AS the data shows in total more than 58,400 unique wallets participated in Proposal #82 voting. Among the participants 77% voted for Yes. However, considering weight of the votes we can see that more than 37% voted for NoWithVeto. According the Cosmos Governance rules, this amount is enough for rejection of the proposal.
Votes over time
Graph below shows how votes changed over time. We can see that since the beginning of November 4th the dominance of Yes votes has decreased gradually.
Data also reveals that on 4th and 5th November the average ATOM balance of voters increased.
New users also participated later in the second week of voting period as the graph below shows.
Switchers
Switchers are defined those wallet addresses who changed their decisions during the voting period, and shift from one option to the other.
As can be seen Yes-→NoWithVeto has the highest number among switchers. More than 3000 Wallet addresses switched from Yes to No with Veto in the course of voting process. Breaking data into new vs experienced voters we can see that percentage of Yes -→ No with Veto among experienced users is higher than among new voters.
We can see that the size of new voters are not significant in comparison with experienced voters.
However, the data shows that most of them voted in the late voting period and more frequently changed their decisions in the second week of voting period.
New voters are defined as voters whose their first participation is in Proposal #82.
Experienced voters are defined as voters who voted at least one time before the proposal #82 voting.
We saw that some big size wallets has changed their decision before ending the voting period and their switch influences the whole community.
Table below listed top switchers. We can see that half of the top 10 switchers, changed their votes between 4th and 6th. Others changed between 11th and 13th.
We can confidently say that those who chaged their decision to ‘No with Veto’ between 4th and 6th significantly influenced other decisions.
Conclusion
The unexpected last-minute boost of vote against proposal #82 underlines once again that so-called “social dynamics from the bottom up” can generate surprising and abrupt changes. This unpredictability is mainly due to the fact that individuals do not make decisions in a vacuum: social interactions alter choices.
The data shows that while in the beginning of voting voters supported the proposal, this trend was changed by disclosing influential voters decisions between 4th and 6th November. This could be a reflection of online communications in community that can be found on Twitter like this one.
This process led to a change at macro-level results of proposal.
Notes on Method
To extract voting data, ==cosmos.core== schema and ==fact_msg_attributes== table have been used.
The following conditions lead us to voting transactions:
- for votes msg_type = 'proposal_vote' AND a.attribute_key = 'proposal_id' AND attribute_value = '82'
- for options msg_type = 'proposal_vote' AND attribute_key = 'option'
- for voters c.msg_type = 'coin_spent' AND attribute_key = 'spender'
The graph next to this box shows the hourly number of votes per options.
We can see that many voted in the first couple of hours.
Interestingly, contrary to the beginning of the voting period in the ending of the period the dominance of NoWithVeto replace Yes votes. We will look closer into this issues during the next sections.
Regarding the voting power and the volume of ATOM voters hold, we can see that NoWithVeto voters hold the largest volume of ATOM on average.
Also No and NoWithVeto voters has a greater share of new voters comparing to Yes and Abstain voters.
