Introduction

Cosmos is a decentralized network of independent parallel blockchains. A network, where each blockchain is driven by its own consensus algorithm and interconnected by the Cosmos network.

The functioning of Cosmos relies on a structure that is known as Hub. The Cosmos Hub is actually a ledger that maintains the main history of the entire Cosmos network. In simpler words, it is a blockchain that stores the information of everything that happens in Cosmos and the actions that take place between the different actors that are interconnected to its network. For example, if two blockchains interconnected to Cosmos share certain events, those events will be recorded in the central Cosmos Hub attesting to what happened. At the same time, the results of those actions will be recorded on the respective blockchain they have interacted with. In this way, the evidence of the interaction is recorded in such a way that there is no way to deny it. This is very useful, since this type of structure greatly facilitates that, for example, DApps (Decentralized Applications) from different blockchains can communicate with each other [1].

On the other hand, Cosmos also has a native cryptocurrency or token called ATOM. This token has the fundamental role of creating an economic ecosystem that incentivizes the work that sustains the entire network. First of all, the Cosmos network depends on the work of 100 validators, who are responsible for using the Tendermint protocol to perform the process of generating and validating blocks within the network. This limit is an initial limit that can be altered by the governance of the protocol at any time.

The work of validators in any case must be rewarding, and as in most blockchains, that reward is given in native tokens, in this case, ATOM tokens. But that selection of validators respects the rules of any PoS consensus protocol, so to be chosen one must have a significant staking to be able to participate. This means that validators must store and block balances in ATOM to obtain such participation.

Along with this, the ATOM token serves as a mechanism to prevent misuse of the network, i.e. to discourage spam, as well as to access network services and as a governance system within the network, since ATOM token holders can cast votes in proportion to their staking in ATOM.

Methods

In this dashboard I am exploring the governance on Cosmos. In concrete, the proposal 82 is being examined. The idea is to show not only the results but also a comparison against other proposals. 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".

\n So, the main metrics analyzed are:

• First time voters and vote switching

• What is the average wallet size (in ATOM) of the people voting? Of the people who changed their vote?

• 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?

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

  \n

In these first charts we can see the distribution of votes by result and the distribution of voters. On the first image, we can see the difference of voting results of Proposal 82 against the others proposals carried out so far. While in Proposal 82 more than 15% of votes have been No with Veto, for therest of proposals the mean has been less than 6%. As well, there is a low percentage of No, having 4% instead of 14% that has been the mean of the other proposals.

Looking at the distribution of voters, it can be seen how the percentage changes are similar as for the votes. but in this case, the No with Veto not esperimented so much difference due to the mean for the other proposals has been 14% so far. The main difference here is the percentage of Yes, that has been almost 77% for the proposal 82, while less than 50 for the rest of proposals.

==CONCLUSION==

• ¡While in Proposal 82 more than 15% of votes have been No with Veto, for therest of proposals the mean has been less than 6%. As well, there is a low percentage of No, having 4% instead of 14% that has been the mean of the other proposals.
• No with Veto not esperimented so much difference due to the mean for the other proposals has been 14% so far. The main difference here is the percentage of Yes, that has been almost 77% for the proposal 82, while less than 50 for the rest of proposals.
• Looking at the voting activity for Proposal 82, we can see how the major of votes were exectued during the first hours. However, the activity didn’t stop until the end of the governance voting window.
• Regarding the distribution of users, it can be seen how in the major of the time around 90% were old users, but during the final hours the % of new voters increased to 20%.
• Looking at the voting options, we can see how during the first hours/days, the major of votes were Yes, but it started to change during the second half of the governance period when the No With Veto votes started to increase.
• More than 57% of the total voting changes were Yes to No wtih Veto, followed by No to No with Veto. It is clear that there were some news that affected the vote of this Proposal, where more than 70% of the changes where to pass to No With Veto option.
• Looking at the ATOM balances of the Proposal 82 voters, it can be seen how the major of them have less than 100 $ATOM on their balances. Jowever an importatn part of them have between 100 and 1k $ATOM.
• While the amount of redelegations and active redelegations increased a little bit during this proposal, the volume redelegated had a big jump during Proposal 82, reaching an ATH of 8M redelegated, which was a huge difference in comparison to the previous redelegations that reached less than 0.5M.

In these two charts on the left we can see the difference of voters’ longevity. In this case, less new voters voted on proposal 82 as in the other proposals did.

As well, the difference is higher for those who voted “No With Veto” option, passing from alsmot 17% to less than 7%,

Looking at the voting activity for Proposal 82, we can see how the major of votes were exectued during the first hours. However, the activity didn’t stop until the end of the governance voting window.

In terms of users, we can see how the major of voters taken action during the first hours. More clear is for new users that voted for the first tie. However, they had a peak during the final hours.

Regarding the distribution of users, it can be seen how in the major of the time around 90% were old users, but during the final hours the % of new voters increased to 20%.

In these charts we can see the voting activity on Cosmos since its inception. It can be seen how regarding votes, the Proposal 82 not altered so much the activity. But something different happened in terms of voters, when it jumped to an ATH just when the Proposal 82 governance started.

If we analyze the same activity but incorporating the type of vote, we can see that there was a particular behavior basically during the second half of the governance period.

Looking at the voting options, we can see how during the first hours/days, the major of votes were Yes, but it started to change during the second half of the governance period when the No With Veto votes started to increase.

Something similar occurred with the amount of voters. In the distribution chart, we can see how the No with Veto votes started to gain dominance passing from less than 1% to mroe than 60% during the final hours/days.

Lets analyze the voting changes over the Proposal 82. Here it can be seen how more than 57% of the total voting changes were Yes to No wtih Veto, followed by No to No with Veto. It is clear that there were some news that affected the vote of this Proposal, where more than 70% of the changes where to pass to No With Veto option.

As wekk, if we take into account the time difference between first vote and last vote, we can see how the Yes to No With Veto votes had the most time (around 185 hours between votes).

Main Proposal 82 results

Proposal 82 vs others

Proposal 82 changing votes

Proposal 82 user profile

Looking at the ATOM balances of the Proposal 82 voters, it can be seen how the major of them have less than 100 $ATOM on their balances. Jowever an importatn part of them have between 100 and 1k $ATOM.

A low percentage of them have on their balances more than 1k $ATOM.

In this final study about the redelegations on ATOM, it can be seen how during the Proposal 82 the activity was higher than normal.

While the amount of redelegations and active redelegations increased a little bit during this proposal, the volume redelegated had a big jump during Proposal 82, reaching an ATH of 8M redelegated, which was a huge difference in comparison to the previous redelegations that reached less than 0.5M.

Redelegations final study