[Osmosis] - Osmosis Governance: 362 and Beyond
Bounty 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.
Overview
1. Among the 24,228 transactions that have been made to vote for this proposal, there is only one transaction in which the number of votes is more than one: 1CA1C620739CDBE831D58279DF7A956FF39CA826A86E9E5F56FC6ECD538B0930
8 votes have been given in this transaction, 6 of which are YES and the other 2 are NO. All other transactions contain only one vote.
2. The proposer (Reverie) has deposited 1600 OSMO in two transactions to enable this proposal to be voted. (Initial Deposit is 400 OSMO and the other is 1200 OSMO):
PROPOSAL #362 | Osmosis Grants Program (OGP) Renewal
By voting YES, OSMO stakers signal their support for a 12 month renewal of the Osmosis Grants Program with Reverie continuing as Grants Lead.
By voting NO, OSMO stakers voice their dissent for a 12 month renewal of the Osmosis Grants Program.
The Osmosis Grants Program (OGP) has been active for 6 months, and is now looking to renew for an additional 12 months with some changes to the program. The details are outlined below.
Details
- The OGP will continue its core objective of issuing grants to contributors that can deliver long-term value to Osmosis.
- The OGP will add to this objective the incubation of new subDAOs and Strategic Initiatives to tackle protocol functions.
- Reverie will continue to serve as Grants Lead and is requesting 55,000 USDC and 25,000 OSMO per month in renewed compensation.
- Reverie will add more transparency through monthly reporting, calls, and other frequent reports.
- Jeremy Parish and Monetsupply will be added as two new signers on the OGP multi-sig.
As part of this proposal, the community will have an option to terminate Reverie’s involvement with the OGP after 6 months.
-- [Image Link] --
![db_img](https://uploads.flipsidecrypto.com/product/images/6MS-mjCU29_S.jpeg)
![db_img](https://uploads.flipsidecrypto.com/product/images/le9aGUJnY49b.png)
\
1. The total number of votes on this proposal page on Mintscan.io is less than what we got from the tables. It seems that 1112 votes were not counted in the desired period of time.
2. I did some checks to the best of my knowledge and what I found was that in the osmosis.core.fact_governance_votes table, the voting power (corresponding to the VOTE_WEIGHT column) is not applied to the tables. This issue has also caused the difference in the percentage of votes we have obtained and what is on the Mintscan page of this proposal. The impact of voters' voting power can be clearly seen here. In our findings, more than 84% of registered votes were "yes". But this is the result without applying voting power. After applying voting power , this percentage is reduced to 43.84% (something about half) and instead, although the number of "abstain" votes constitutes about 5% of the votes, but in the final result its influence is more than 40%. The percentage of total votes has been reached. But what is the story?
Let's take a look at the validators' votes:
![db_img](https://uploads.flipsidecrypto.com/product/images/9qehILQ6M9IO.png)
\
Quite clearly, everything can be summed up in the voting power of the voters. The very high voting power of validators has shown itself here. Out of 312 Osmosis validators, 150 of them are currently active and could participate in the voting. Among these 150, more than 40% did not participate in the voting of this proposal. What is interesting here is the closeness of the number of yes and no votes. (30 yes and 26 abstain) Many "abstain" votes can be seen in validators with higher voting power.
1. The most votes were given by the following address. This user has voted for this proposal 17 times: osmo16798cwveu2pch9js2ptfy4u6td9zme3mh95n86
2. There are 1197 voters who voted more than once. A very large part of them voted twice, and naturally, as the number of votes of a voter increases, the number of voters who have voted that number becomes less and less.
3. More than 94.5% of the voters cast only one vote.
1. Here you can clearly see how much the average balance of OSMO currency for validators who voted for this proposal is higher than the average of other people.
2. The average OSMO balance in validators' wallets is 18.785k and in other people's wallets is 66.9. This means that the average balance of validators is about 281 times the average balance of other people.
3. The ratio of validator votes to total votes can be seen here. The share change of each option is clearly visible here. It is clear that the "yes" option is no longer in full power and now the "no" and "abstain" options are more popular with the validators in terms of total votes.
Among the voters, there were 1197 voters who registered more than 1 vote. This number of options is susceptible to the possibility of changing the vote. But have they all changed their vote?
During the investigation, it was found that out of about 1.2k voters, 909 did not change their votes and all their votes were with one option.
Another 288 voters changed their vote at least once. Among these 288 voters, 272 of them changed their vote between two options. 15 voters used 3 options and only one voter used all 4 voting options in their votes.
Comparing this proposal with the 3 proposals before and the three proposals after proposal No. 362, it can be said that it was more than the other 6 proposals in all fields.
Among these 7 proposals, it was only in this proposal that a voter used all 4 voting options in changing their votes.
In proposal 362, the number of voters who changed their votes using two options is 15 to 20 times more than the voters of other proposals.
In proposal 362, 15 voters have used 3 options in changing their votes. In 6 other proposals, the highest number of voters who have done such a thing is 1 voter (in proposal No. 363), and in 5 other proposals, such an event has never happened.
Conclusion | Answer to my own question
> ==What do you think about this proposal?==
In my opinion, according to the analysis I did, I can say that the proposal was very controversial. From high changes in voters' votes to strong differences of opinion between validators with high voting power and other people.
Methodology
In the first part of this dashboard, a brief overview of the status of this proposal was made. In this review, both Flipside tables and Mintscan.io data were used.
Then it was checked what the votes were. There are 4 options in voting proposals and they were determined using the osmosis.core.dim_vote_options table.
Then the top voters were determined by the number of votes
Next, the number of voters' votes was distributed. In this distribution, 5 categories were set and the number of voters in each category was determined.
Also, voters who voted more than once were separated. They were potential voting options that needed to be explored.
In the following, the votes of the validators were determined. The validators were extracted from the osmosis.core.dim_labels
table. (with this condition: ==LABEL_SUBTYPE = 'validator'==) But because the address that exists for them in this table was different from the address that is registered for their voting, the following command was used to extract their account address:
RAW_METADATA[0]:account_address
Also, using the addresses of these validators, I was able to obtain the average balance of OSMO currency in the wallets of validators and other people. (The date I chose to check the wallet balance was yesterday)
Finally, I evaluated the voters who voted more than once. In order to find out whether they changed their vote or not, I counted the number of options used in their vote and categorized them. Then I did this for 7 proposals. The previous three proposals and the next three proposals and the 362 proposal itself to get a better view of how their voters behave.