Terra - 9. Governance Grind
==Introduction==
Terra is a proprietary blockchain and protocol that does not depend on other blockchains such as Ethereum or Solana. This means that Terra's blockchain, wallets and the entire Terra infrastructure works autonomously from other projects.
That said, Terra's blockchain works thanks to the Proof of Stake (PoS) protocol, so block validators must stake LUNA tokens in order to vote and validate blocks within the network. This is the main functionality of the LUNA token, to ensure the proper functioning and security of the Terra network. In addition, Terra has been built to give developers advanced smart contract tools, allowing them to design dApps.
The Terra protocol is a decentralized public blockchain governed by community members. Governance is the democratic process that allows users and validators to make changes to the Terra protocol. Community members submit, vote, and implement proposals. The governance module maintains the logic for all governance activity.
Proposals start as ideas within the community on Terra's Agora forum. After gaining support and feedback from the community, a proposer drafts and submits a proposal alongside an initial deposit.
==Methods==
In this analysis we will focus on Terra Proposals. More specifically, we will analyze the following data:
- Numnber of votes per proposal
- Distribution of votes per proposal
- Number of voters per proposal
- Distribution of voters per proposal
- Daily number of votes by results
- Daily number of voters by results
- Voters activity by proposals
- Proposal activity by type of voter
- Global activity by type of voters
- Average votes per voter
- Comparing Proposal 3796 and 3794
In the first graph we can see that in December there were two proposals. During the 13th day the voting activity increased. In January, the number of voters also increased, with proposal 3796 having more voters than the other proposals.
We can see that proposal 3796 was the proposal with the most new voters.
Finally, we can see the global activity by type of voters. We can see that in December there were a large number of old voters, 72 to be precise. While in January, there was an increase in voting activity, both in old voters and new voters.
We can see that in the average votes per voter, the 5 proposals analysed have very similar figures, with an average of 1 vote per voter or slightly more. In the Others option, we see that the average rises, reaching more than 1.4 votes per voter in the old voters.
In these two graphs we have analysed the daily number of votes and voters by results. Firstly, we can see that in December, in the first proposals, the most voted option was undoubtedly YES.
On the other hand, in January, in the last proposals, the NO option gained a lot of importance. We can see that the voting intentions are similar.
In the first graph we can see the number of votes per proposal. We can see that in 3 proposals the YES option stands out above the others and, moreover, these are the 3 proposals with the most votes. In the other 2 proposals, the most voted option was NO, but with more votes than in the previous ones. The NO WITH VETO option has been the least voted option in all 5 cases.
We have also analysed the number of voters per proposal. We see that this graph is very similar to the previous one. Moreover, we see that there are not many more voters than votes. This means that few users have voted more than twice. Where there have been more voters has been in proposal 3619 and 3796. In both cases, where there have been more voters has been in the YES option, as we can see in the distribution of voters per proposal.
==Key insight==
- In 3 proposals the YES option stands out above the others.
- In the other 2 proposals, the most voted option was NO, but with more votes than in the previous ones.
- There are not many more voters than votes. Few users have voted more than twice.
- In proposal 3619 and 3796 there have been more voters.
- In December, in the first proposals, the most voted option was undoubtedly YES.
- In January, in the last proposals, the NO option gained a lot of importance.
- In december, during the 13th day the voting activity increased.
- In January, the number of voters also increased, with proposal 3796 having more voters than the other proposals.
- Proposal 3796 was the proposal with the most new voters.
- In December there were a large number of old voters. In January, there was an increase in voting activity, both in old voters and new voters.
Comparing Proposal 3796 and 3794
In this section we have compared the two most interesting Proposals: 3796 and 3794. In the following, we will explain the most relevant information of each of them.
First of all, we see that Proposal 3796 has two major changes:
- Removed back pay component for the work previously provided
- Introduced a 10 % revenue sharing with the community pool to pay back the grant in the mid to long term.
We have researched why voters have voted YES to these changes. We have analysed what the community thinks about this proposal. They have explained that, although they want to see continued progress from the team first, they believe it is a solid project with a good future.
In the second hand, we can see that in the Proposal 3794 they want to make the following changes:
- Terra Poker is seeking funding support from the Terra Community Pool to further expand its credibility and influence, and to create even greater momentum to achieve mid-long term goals. In order for Terra Poker to keep developing we need to subsidize operational and infrastructure costs. This will add greater visibility to the platform as the team will focus on being laser focused attracting new users to the Terra Network.
We have reserached why voters have voted NO to these changes. We have analysed what the community thinks about this proposal.
The community has explained that, although they have a lot of confidence in the team, they will vote NO on this proposal as it does not make sense for the Terra Community to be funding a team that raised money from a token sale and has no intent to give up equity (in the form of TPT tokens) in exchange for funding from the Terra Community Pool. By voting ‘Yes’, we will be unfairly favouring TPT token holders at the expense of LUNA stakeholders.
To conclude, we can conclude that, even if the community has a lot of confidence in your team, if they do not see that the project is solid and has a foundation, they will not vote YES. They are communities with a lot of common sense, who have to see clearly that the project can have a promising future.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/057ae/057aebf5054951d74a242614208849d0e2a46cda" alt="db_img"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/467c1/467c1b2a8279a40183e995e6a7d17c56bcec8ee8" alt="db_img"