Try Quests to earn cryptoGovernance Grind
Introduction
Welcome to the Terra 2.0 Governance Proposal Dashboard! Here, you will find an in-depth analysis of the voting activity on the most recent 5 proposals on the Terra 2.0 network. Our dashboard provides a comprehensive view of the voting trends and patterns in these proposals, giving you a deeper understanding of the decision-making process on the network. Additionally, you will have access to a deep dive on the 5 most recent active proposals, including a breakdown of voting activity for each proposal and a comparison of successful vs unsuccessful proposals. We also provide a side by side comparison of 2 governance proposals, with an analysis of the proposal's strengths and weaknesses and suggestions on how to improve them. With this dashboard, you will have all the information you need to stay informed and engage in the governance process on the Terra 2.0 network.
Methodology:
Data Analysis: In order to identify trends and patterns in voting activity for the most recent 5 governance proposals, we first looked at the number of votes for and against each proposal. This allowed us to see the level of support or opposition for each proposal and identify any patterns in voting behavior. We also looked at voter participation, which allowed us to see how many voters participated in the voting process for each proposal. This information was used to calculate the percentage of votes required for a proposal to pass, which helped us understand the level of support needed for a proposal to be approved.
Proposal Comparison: In order to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of two governance proposals and make suggestions for improvement, we first read through the proposals in detail and identified the main objectives and goals of each proposal. We then compared the proposals side by side and evaluated the level of detail and clarity in the proposal, the feasibility of the proposal, and the potential impact of the proposal on the Terra 2.0 network. We also looked at the level of community engagement and support for each proposal, and evaluated the level of transparency and accountability in the proposal. Based on our analysis, we provided recommendations on how to improve the proposals and increase the chances of success.
Terra proposal voting percentage
Voting activity of 5 most recent active proposals
Analysis
Based on the data provided, it appears that the vast majority of proposals submitted to the Terra governance system are not receiving any votes. This could indicate a lack of community engagement and interest in the proposals being submitted. However, it is worth noting that on January 15th there was a significant spike in the number of unvoted proposals, which could have contributed to this trend. When looking at the voting activity of the most recent 5 proposals that have been voted on, it is clear that the proposals that passed received more votes and had more active voter participation than the proposals that did not pass. This suggests that proposals with more support and engagement from the community are more likely to be approved by the governance system. In the past month, there have been 5 proposals that have been voted on with a total of 1048 votes and 555 voters. This indicates that voter participation in the governance process is relatively low, with only about half of the voters participating in the voting process for each proposal. Overall, it appears that the Terra governance system is facing a low voter turnout and a high number of unvoted proposals, which could be a cause for concern. Furthermore, the data suggests that proposals that pass have more community engagement and support, which is crucial for the success of the governance system. To improve the system, it could be useful to encourage more community engagement, provide more information and education about the proposals, and create a more accessible and user-friendly voting process.
Voter analysis
Analysis
Based on the data provided, it appears that a significant portion of the voters in the past 5 proposals have been active for 2 or less months, with 52% of voters falling into this category. This suggests that there is a high degree of turnover among voters in the Terra governance system, with many users only participating in a small number of proposals before becoming inactive. Furthermore, the data shows a large group of users who are both new voters and original voters, indicating that there is a steady influx of new voters participating in the governance process. However, the voters who were active in July-September are not as active as the other groups, which suggests a potential drop off in engagement from those who joined during that time. This high degree of turnover among voters and low engagement from some groups could be a cause for concern for the Terra governance system. It could suggest that the community is not fully committed to the governance process and is not engaging with proposals in a meaningful way. To improve the system, it could be useful to create more opportunities for voter education and engagement, and to make the voting process more accessible and user-friendly. Additionally, it could be beneficial to understand why certain groups of voters are less active and address those issues.
Proposal text comparison
The following section will present a comparison of the most recent proposal that has passed and one that has failed. The proposals will be analyzed and evaluated based on their quality, including the effectiveness of their arguments, the soundness of their reasoning, and the feasibility of their proposed solutions. This comparison will provide a deeper understanding of the factors that contribute to the success or failure of a proposal and will help identify key elements that should be included in future proposals.
3796 | Community pool spend proposal Passed
ERIS Protocol Revised Grant Proposal
Revised ERIS Grant Proposal
published on 1/2/2023
622 views
We have taken some time off to recharge our batteries after our closely failed grant proposal and we are back for a second try with a revised proposal.
Biggest 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.
Our original detailed proposal can be found here, the development scope is unchanged: ____
TLDR:
Introduction
ERIS protocol provides Terra with a suite of products around liquid staking and creates a stable economy around yield-generating assets.
Liquid staking derivatives (LSDs) will be at the core of DeFi in the next few years, as it allows an efficient usage of capital while also providing security for the chain. A strong financial on-chain economy is needed to fuel the revival of Terra DeFi. This is where our passion lies and what we want to provide the Terra community with.
Since the Terra crash we have started building our product portfolio (Amplifier, Amp Extractor, Amp Compounder, Manual Arb) for the community. We require a funding of $ 500,000 USD benchmarked at 08:00 UST time on January 13, 2023 to provide the community with a dedicated professional DevOps team, further products for a stable LSD economy, an innovative, fair delegation and governance framework and provide the infrastructure and configuration for a Terra based LSD liquidity hub.
View the rest here:
3795 | Community pool spend proposal Rejected
Terra Poker Grant Proposal (Updated)
Terra Poker | Community Grant Proposal
published on 1/2/2023
827 views
Update Jan. 10 - This is now live for voting on:
♦️ Who We Are & Our Mission ♠️
Terra Poker is the first Texas Hold’em style Poker based Play-to-Earn protocol on the Terra Blockchain. Our mission is to become the best bluechip P2E protocol on the Terra Network and beyond. By leveraging easy-to-use DeFi capabilities and the game of poker as a magnetic denominator to attract all users, Terra Poker’s main purpose is to lead user growth and rebuild the Terra Ecosystem.
♦️ Summary of Contents ♠️
- Introduction
- Products that we have built
- Achievements thus far
- Partnering with Terra
- Grant Proposal & Funding
- Team
- Conclusion
♦️ Introduction ♠️
Terra Poker is the first Texas Hold’em style Poker based Play-to-Earn (P2E) protocol on the Terra blockchain. Since its launch in Sep 26, 2022 the protocol has quickly grown to a sizeable force in the Terra Network that boasts for majority of transaction volume, accumulated fees and user acquisition made on the new network. Terra Poker, against odds of a continual bear market, has gained credibility to achieve success thus far, and will continually work to help the Terra Ecosystem return to its previous vibrancy.
Therefore, 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.
Find the rest here
Proposal analysis
Both the ERIS Protocol Revised Grant Proposal and the Terra Poker Community Grant Proposal are examples of funding requests submitted to the Terra Community Pool. However, while the ERIS Protocol proposal was successful in passing, the Terra Poker proposal was not. There are several reasons why these proposals were written differently and why one was more successful than the other.First, it is important to note that the ERIS Protocol proposal was revised after a previous failed attempt. This shows that the team behind the proposal was willing to take feedback and make changes to improve their proposal. In contrast, the Terra Poker proposal does not mention any previous attempts or revisions. This lack of willingness to adapt and improve may have contributed to the proposal's failure. Additionally, the ERIS Protocol proposal presents a clear and concise vision for their project. The proposal states that their goal is to provide a stable economy for liquid staking derivatives and to create an innovative and fair delegation and governance framework. The proposal also includes a detailed explanation of how the funding will be used, including specific costs for audits, marketing, infrastructure, and salaries. This level of detail and transparency is absent in the Terra Poker proposal. Instead, the Terra Poker proposal primarily focuses on their current products and achievements and does not provide a clear vision or explanation of how the funding will be used to achieve their goals. Another key difference between the two proposals is the amount of funding being requested. The ERIS Protocol proposal requests $500,000 USD while the Terra Poker proposal requests 300,000 LUNA executed in a monthly installment of 100,000 LUNA per month. The Terra Poker proposal also includes a spending allocation breakdown, 40% for operational infrastructure costs and 60% for wages and maintenance. This level of specific details is not present in the ERIS Protocol proposal. Terra Poker proposal also presents a clear target market and how it will benefit the Terra ecosystem by not only increasing TPT holders but also by attracting new users to the Terra ecosystem. The proposal also includes a burn mechanism which will be implemented with the grant funding. Lastly, the Terra Poker proposal also includes information about the team andtheir experience in the Terra ecosystem, as well as their experience in the blockchain industry as a whole. The team is comprised of 14 individuals, with a balance of business development and developers. The team also includes members from different nationalities and backgrounds, including experience in traditional industries such as investment banking, global industrials, gaming, and internet technology. The Terra Poker team also acknowledges the headcount will decrease in the near future, which shows their willingness to make difficult but strategic decisions. In conclusion, while both the ERIS Protocol Revised Grant Proposal and the Terra Poker Community Grant Proposal were submitted to the Terra Community Pool, the Terra Poker proposal was more detailed and specific in their funding request, target market and how it will benefit the Terra ecosystem. Additionally, the Terra Poker proposal included details about the team and their experience, and a plan to decrease headcount in the near future. This level of detail and specificity may have contributed to the proposal's failure.
\n
Conclusion
Overall, the data presented in this dashboard provides a comprehensive overview of the voting activity on recent Terra governance proposals. We can see that there is a large number of proposals that are not receiving any votes, which could indicate a lack of community engagement and interest in the proposals being submitted. However, when looking at the voting activity of the most recent 5 proposals that have been voted on, it is clear that the proposals that passed received more votes and had more active voter participation than the proposals that did not pass. The data also shows that a significant portion of the voters in the past 5 proposals have been active for 2 or less months, with 52% of voters falling into this category. This suggests that there is a high degree of turnover among voters in the Terra governance system, with many users only participating in a small number of proposals before becoming inactive. Additionally, there is a large group of users who are both new voters and original voters, indicating that there is a steady influx of new voters participating in the governance process. However, the voters who were active in July-September are not as active as the other groups, which suggests a potential drop off in engagement from those who joined during that time. In addition, it's also important to note that the success of a proposal is not just determined by the number of votes received, but also by the quality and feasibility of the proposal itself. A good proposal should have a clear and well-defined objective, a detailed plan of action, and a realistic budget and timeline. It should also demonstrate how it will benefit the Terra community and align with the overall vision and goals of the project. Additionally, proposals that have a strong community support and engagement, and have been well-researched and thoughtfully crafted, are more likely to garner more votes and pass in the governance process. In conclusion, this dashboard provides valuable insights into the voting activity on recent Terra governance proposals. The data suggests that voter turnout and engagement in the governance process is low and that there is a high degree of turnover among voters. Furthermore, it indicates that the proposal that passed had more community engagement and support, which is crucial for the success of the governance system