[Osmosis] Decentralizing Power: Governance & the Active Set (Part 2)

    Props 114, 196 & 337 were all passed in an effort to promote decentralization within the ecosystem. After these proposals, how was governance impacted by this effort? Analyze the participation of the new validators on the governance proposals after the active set increases. Did new validators vote more or less than the original top 66% of validators? Did time play a factor? Analyze changes in governance participation t+30,+60,+90 days after these proposals.

    Loading...

    Acknowledgment and supplementary Information

    • I would like to show my sincere gratitude to the author of the following dashboard that helped me very much indeed to do my own analysis: *
    • Author: NSA2000
    • Twitter of the Author: @NSA2000C
    • Discord of the Author: NSA2000#5651
    • Data from FlipsideCrypto
    • Link of this dashboard’s tweet:

    Summary

    • The aim of this dashboard is to investigate the impact of props 114, 196, and 337 on Osmosis governance.
    • the distribution of the voting power according to the props is as follows:
      • 196: 44530 (62.1%)
      • 337: 23359 (32.6%)
      • 114: 3853 (5.37%)
    • the distribution of the voters according to the props is as follows:
      • 196: 43081 (62.8%)
      • 337: 22219 (32.4%)
      • 114: 3299 (4.81%)
    • the distribution of the voting power according to the type of votes is as follows:
      • Yes: 66603 (92.8%)
      • No: 2570 (3.58%)
      • abstain: 2365 (3.3%)
      • no with veto: 0.284%
    • the distribution of the voters according to the type of votes is as follows:
      • Yes: 63580 (92.7%)
      • No: 2498 (3.64%)
      • abstain: 2325 (3.39%)
      • no with veto: 0.286%
    • The weekly variation of the total token flow shows a rather fluctuating trend.
    • The cumulative weekly variation of the voting power according to different validator shows a significantly increasing trend
    • As far as the distribution of the voting power according to different validator is concerned, the following results can be seen for the top 3 validators:
      • osmovaloper1hjct6q7n…pf6t4agt: 17.49M, 13.2%
      • osmovaloper1clpqr4nr…ep88n0y4: 15.60M, 11.8%
      • osmovaloper15urq2dt…49wh9czc: 11.33M, 8.55%
    • The weekly variation of the Osmosis Nakamoto coefficient is rather increasing and lies in the range of 4 to 9.

    This chart shows the weekly variation of the Osmosis Nakamoto coefficient. The weekly variation of the Osmosis Nakamoto coefficient is rather increasing and lies in the range of 4 to 9.

    This chart shows the distribution of the voting power according to different validator. As far as the distribution of the voting power according to different validator is concerned, the following results can be seen for the top 3 validators:

    • osmovaloper1hjct6q7n…pf6t4agt: 17.49M, 13.2%
    • osmovaloper1clpqr4nr…ep88n0y4: 15.60M, 11.8%
    • osmovaloper15urq2dt…49wh9czc: 11.33M, 8.55%

    This chart shows the cumulative weekly variation of the voting power according to different validator as well as the weekly variation of the total token flow.

    • The weekly variation of the total token flow shows a rather fluctuating trend.
    • The cumulative weekly variation of the voting power according to different validator shows a significantly increasing trend
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...

    This pie chart shows the distribution of the voting power according to the props.

    • the distribution of the voting power according to the props is as follows:
      • 196: 44530 (62.1%)
      • 337: 23359 (32.6%)
      • 114: 3853 (5.37%)

    This pie chart shows the distribution of the voting power according to the type of votes.

    • the distribution of the voting power according to the type of votes is as follows:
      • Yes: 66603 (92.8%)
      • No: 2570 (3.58%)
      • abstain: 2365 (3.3%)
      • no with veto: 0.284%

    Introduction

    Osmosis is an automated market maker (AMM) built on Cosmos that enables cross-chain transactions through Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC). This gives the protocol an added layer of interoperability and composability. Unlike most existing AMMs, Osmosis is deeply customizable and allows developers to leverage many different changeable parameters to build truly unique AMMs that can dynamically fit a variety of outcome goals. Ultimately, Osmosis enables developers to design and deploy custom AMMs that can quickly adjust to changing market conditions and allow market participants to decide which iterations provide the most optimal results, rather than relying on the protocol itself. []

    \n

    Methodology

    The data in this dashboard is obtained from the following tables:

    near.core.fact_transactions

    near.core.fact_actions_events_function_call     

    osmosis.core.fact_staking

           

    Aim of this dashboard:

    The aim of this dashboard is to investigate the impact of props 114, 196, and 337 on Osmosis governance.

    This pie chart shows the distribution of the voters according to the props.

    • the distribution of the voters according to the props is as follows:

      • 196: 43081 (62.8%)
      • 337: 22219 (32.4%)
      • 114: 3299 (4.81%)

      \

    This pie chart shows the distribution of the voters according to the type of votes.

    • the distribution of the voters according to the type of votes is as follows:
      • Yes: 63580 (92.7%)
      • No: 2498 (3.64%)
      • abstain: 2325 (3.39%)
      • no with veto: 0.286%