Introduction

    • In this Analysis, You will Read about Proposal 82 on the Cosmosis chain. 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".

    • So, I went through this proposal and analyzed these parameters:

    • Total Votes and voters

    • Votes option

    • Users Atom Balance

    • Compare with other Proposals and more…


      Analyzed by Hess - Reading Time Almost 10 Min.

      \n

    Proposal 82 Overview

    • Let’s see a quick overview of Proposal 82 on the Cosmos chain. This proposal had 58.3K unique voters and 156 unique validator voters. These validators and voters voted 70K times. The number voted is different from the number of voters because some voters voted multiple times and changed their votes. We will see what they change. Overall, 99.7% of voters were Normal users, and 0.3% of voters were validators.
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...

    Voters and vote options on Proposal 82

    When the proposal started, Most users voted YES on this proposal. But after a week, the number of No with veto votes increased significantly. The total number of No with veto votes was 2-3x higher than YES. As I mentioned before, We don’t have access to vote powers but based on the total number of voters, About 49K voters voted YES, and 10.2K voters voted No with Veto. The lowest vote option was Abstain, with 1.7K votes. I should mention that the below chart is based on total daily voters. It means multiple votes of voters are counted.

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

    Vote Options per Voter type

    • I can see about 10% of users were their first votes. The highest number of users for each category voted YES. Normal users had the highest number of No With Veto votes. It is interesting because all types of voters had similar votes. Based on Validator votes, 23% of validators voted No With Veto. 15.5% of normal voters voted No With Veto, and 19.8% of new users voted for that option. However, I should mention that all votes are counted in the below chart. Not only the latest votes!
    Loading...
    Loading...

    Vote Changes

    • One of the problems of this proposal that was rejected is that some voters changed their votes from Yes to No with Veto. Because of that, This proposal was rejected. Let’s examine which types of voters changed their votes, How many times, and what was their changes.
    • As you can see, Normal users changed their votes most compared to other types of voters. About 20% of Validators changed their votes. Fewer new voters changed their votes.
    • 85.7% of voters didn’t change their votes during Proposal 82. Almost 9% of voters changed their vote one time only. I can see that 2.16% Of users changed their votes two times. 1.38% of Proposal 82 voters changed their votes more than three times.
    • The Majority of users changed their votes from YES to No With Veto. 43 new users, 3.3K Normal users, and 14 validators changed their votes from Yes to No With Veto.

    What is Comsosis?

    • Cosmos (ATOM) is a cryptocurrency that powers an ecosystem of blockchains designed to scale and interoperate with each other. The team aims to "create an Internet of Blockchains, a network of blockchains able to communicate with each other in a decentralized way." Cosmos is a proof-of-stake chain
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...

    Voter’s Balances

    I mentioned before that we don’t have an exact balance table on Cosmos tables. So These balances are approximate. I extracted the user’s balance from their transferred Atom.

    • Based on That, The large group of voters has 10-100 Atom in their wallets. This group of users is 43.8% of total voters. The second large group of users had below 1 Atom in their wallets which is 20.8% of voters. Only 0.23% of users had between 10K-100K Atom in their wallets.
    Loading...
    Loading...

    Compare Proposal 82 with other Proposals

    • Proposal 82 is not the top proposal on Cosmos governance. There were some proposals with more than 70K voters. From Proposal 62 and Proposal 70, the highest number of voters participated. Since Proposals 72 and 81, The total number of voters decreased. But for Proposal 82, The total number of voters increased again. After Proposal 82, fewer users participated in the voting.
    • For Proposal 82, Almost 0.27% of voters were Validators, and 99.7% were Normal users. After Proposal 82, more validators participated in Voting. For example, In Proposal 88, The total number of validators was 2x higher than the validators in Proposal 82.
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...

    Redelegate Action

    I analyzed the redelegate activities before, During, and After proposal 82.

    • During Proposal 82, The highest number of redelegate happened. Before Proposal 82, The total number of redelegators was 200-250 but during Proposal 82, it Increased to 444 Redelegators. The average number of redelegators was 299 during Proposal 82, 249 before Proposal 82, and 213 redelegators after Proposal 82.
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    db_img

    Why Governance is Important?

    • Governance offers the holders voting rights to the network and the result is a truly community-driven system that encourages active participation. Governance tokens are an incredibly important part of the crypto ecosystem and are set to become more prominent as things evolve and mature.

    Proposal 82

    From Proposal 82 Proposers:

    • 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.

      We have included the paper below in its entirety for the community’s consideration.

    • 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.

    db_img

    Full Analysis

    Method

    Before I explain my method, I should say congrats to the Flipside team that provided Cosmos On-chain data. It’s a big move for them.

    • This proposal is on the Cosmos chain, not Osmosis. So, I needed to look at Cosmo’s new tables.
    • Right now, We have only some key tables for the Cosmos chain. So, We don’t have an exact table for governance, voting, and even user balances. So, I needed to create a custom Governance table.
    • I used cosmos.core.fact_msg_attributes and transactions to create a custom governance table. From the Msg_arrtributes table, I found the proposal id and voting transactions hash.
    • I filtered ATTRIBUTE_KEY = 'proposal_id' and extracted ATTRIBUTE_VALUE as proposal id. Now I have time, Transactions id, and Proposal Id. I joined my findings to the Transactions table with tx_id and used tx_from as a voter.
    • All I missed is Voted options. So, I used my findings and used the MSG_attributes table again and filtered ATTRIBUTE_KEY = 'option' this time. attribute_value column includes vote options. I used try_parse_jason and converted that column to an array. Then:
    • case when vote_option = 1, then 'YES' when vote_option = 2, then 'Abstain' when vote_option = 3, then 'No' when vote_option = 4, then 'No With Veto'

    How I found Validator Address?

    • I tried many ways because we don’t have something like Dim labels or address types. So, I found that each Validator has an Operator address and Cosmos address. They vote with Cosmos address, not Operator address. Accidently, I found their Cosmos address is like their Operator address. Let’s see the below example:

      validator address: cosmosvaloper1sjllsnramtg3ewxqwwrwjxfgc4n4ef9u2lcnj0

      Validator Cosmos address: cosmos1sjllsnramtg3ewxqwwrwjxfgc4n4ef9u0tvx7u

    • As you can see, Their address is the same with a little different. Following the below code, I joined these addresses:

    • validator_vote_option as ( select left(voter,35) as voters , b.tx_id from cosmos.core.fact_msg_attributes a join proposals b on a.tx_id = b.tx_id where ATTRIBUTE_KEY = 'option') ,

    • validator as ( select REPLACE(ATTRIBUTE_VALUE, 'valoper', '') as validator , left(validator, 35) as validators from cosmos.core.fact_msg_attributes where ATTRIBUTE_KEY = 'validator') ,


    validator_voter as ( select tx_id, validators from validator a join validator_vote_option b on a.validators = b.voters)

    \

    • As you can see, I removed the developer from the Validator address and shorted the Cosmos address. Then, I matched 35 strings from the left. Now, I have Validator's address. From Joining Tx_ids, I extracted the full address of Validators again. It’s a little complicated, but it works.

    The total number of votes is pretty much like the total number of voters. So, I Normalized the total number of votes to see the daily share of votes. Until November 3, four days after the Proposal started, 93% of the votes were YES, and only 2.8% were No With Veto. After November 4, The total number of No with Veto votes increased and reached 55.5% of votes on November 12. Some voters slowly changed their votes to No With Veto After November 4.

    In the below chart, I examined proposal 82 voters on other proposals. These voters were active on recent proposals. They had fewer activities on old proposals. If We ignore Proposal 82, The proposal 82 voters voted on Proposal 81 and 83.

    You can see what Proposal 82 voters voted on other proposals in the below charts.

    I examined Proposal 82 voters behavior on other Proposals. based on the below charts; I can see that voters changed their votes on other proposals too. It seems is a common action and on Proposal 82 everything is fine and nothing unusual.

    As you have seen, The total number of redelegations increased but based on total redelegated Atom amounts, The highest amount of Atoms redelegated during Proposal 82. Before Proposal 82, The average of the redelegated atoms was 70K Atoms, and After that was 70K Atoms, but during proposal 82, The average redelegated atom was 661K. It seems this proposal impacted redelegate activities. On November 7, Almost 8M Atom was redelegated.

    Conclusion

    • About 58K Voters voted 70K on Proposal 82.
    • The total number of validators that participated in Proposal 82 was 158 unique validators.
    • Most Users voted YES, but they changed their votes to No With Veto.
    • The highest number of voters that changed their votes were Normal users, and about 20% of Validators changed their votes.
    • 10% of total voters voted their first vote on Cosmos chain.
    • The large group of users has 10-100 Atom in their wallets.
    • The total number of voters on Proposal 82 was higher than in recent proposals.
    • The total number of Redelegators increased during Proposal 82.
    • Also, The average amount of redelegated Atoms increased significantly during Proposal 82.

    THANK YOU FOR READING!

    ALL CODES AND CONTENTS WERE WRITTEN BY HESS.

    :bird: Twitter: @hessaminanloo

    :t-rex: Discord: hess#0890

    :calendar: Analyze Date: 2022/DEC/12

    Twitter Link: