Infamous 82
This dashboard gives great information on the voting in the Cosmos Network where the voters in the network are considered and their actions are tracked. Let's get into it.
Bounty Question:
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".
Take a look at governance behavior surrounding Proposal #82 - specifically first-time voters and vote switching. Is it possible to identify any key "swing voters" (ie ATOM whales or influential validators) that really turned the tide of the vote? Were any of them first-time voters?
What is the average wallet size (in ATOM) of the people voting? Of the people who changed their vote? Further, is Prop #82 significantly different than other proposals from an engagement perspective? Analyze voting for Cosmos #82 vs. other recent governance proposals in the Hub. Has overall governance participation increased or decreased since Prop #82?
Finally, have ATOM holders re-delegated their staked ATOM as a result of the vote? Highlight any interesting patterns in the re-delegation activity.
\n
INTRODUCTION
Cosmos (ATOM) is a decentralized network of autonomous blockchains that use Byzantine Fault-Tolerant (BFT) consensus algorithms.
The Cosmos Network's native staking token is $ATOM. Cosmos' goal is to create a "internet of blockchains" that can scale and communicate with one another.
$ATOM has three applications:
as a spam-prevention system (paying fees)
as wagering tokens
as a governance voting method [Gaia, the Cosmos Hub] (https://hub.cosmos.network/main/governance/#::text=The Cosmos Hub ("Gaia",and proposing them on-chain.) has an on-chain governance system for passing text proposals, modifying consensus parameters, and spending community pool funds. This repository offers background material on these various types of proposals and recommended practices for writing and proposing them on-chain.
Instead of depositing ATOM, participants in this governance step vote Yes, No, No With Veto, or Abstain. If a proposal achieves a quorum or the minimum threshold established by the voting process, it advances to the next step for tallying. Only staked tokens can be utilized for governance voting.
In contrast to the 2017 article, which mainly concentrated on the network of IBC-connected chains, we suggest a new Cosmos Hub vision statement. The initial goal of the Hub has been realized with the development of the Cosmos Stack (Tendermint, IBC, and SDK) and the core technologies for secure economic scalability (Interchain Security and Liquid Staking). With the release of this document, the Cosmos Hub enters a new phase as a platform for infrastructure services, and ATOM resumes its position as the Cosmos Network's preferred collateral. The Interchain Scheduler and Interchain Allocator are two pieces of app-specific functionality that work together as a flywheel to speed up interchain growth.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/58143/5814339af95b53cb594a95515eb0cfcd7ec2ee07" alt="db_img"
METHODOLOGY
We will examine Proposal #82's behavior on Cosmos Hub in this dashboard. Initially, I have given some general information regarding voting and voters in the cosmos using the #82 proposal where the total voters, votes, etc are considered. Then, upon pointing to Proposal #82's vote record with that of other recent Cosmos Hub proposals. Then, I looked into the question of how voters altered their votes in Proposal #82. The experience of the voters is also considered to see if it’s first-time voters and also the type of voting they have done and also if they have changed their votes. I have also analyzed the ATOM balance in their wallets to see if there is any influence of the Whales in the voting of the cosmos network. It will be better to visualize the charts so can have deep ideas on the analysis.
The table I used are:
cosmos.core.fact_transfers
cosmos.core.fact_msg_attribute
A cross-chain block space market called The Interchain Scheduler makes money off of cross-chain MEV. The Interchain Allocator uses these funds to fund new Cosmos chains, promote interchain cooperation, and so increase the total addressable market for the Scheduler. In addition, a new issuance regime that is suited for liquid staking is described in this study. Under this regime, exponential issuance is decreased to a fixed monthly supply of ATOM after a 36-month transition period. The report outlines the establishment of Cosmos Councils, bodies with specific area expertise that manage development and operations, to carry out the suggested strategy. The Cosmos Assembly, which is comprised of the Cosmos Councils, is a body answerable to ATOM holders and in charge of establishing annual objectives, allocating resources, and managing the activities carried out on behalf of Cosmos Hub.
Both the charts here show the aggregate number of the voters and the votes in the #82 proposal in the cosmos network. Here it is seen that the total votes count 70542 with an aggregate count of 58440 users which is also seen that on an average a voter can make 1.207 votes.
The chart here shows the timely analysis of the voters and the votes in proposal #82 of the cosmos network where it is seen that over time, in the past week of this month there is a drastic drop in the number of voters so as the number of votes from a range of 500s to near 100 a drop of the order of 5 times.
The vote types and the total votes in proposal #82 in the cosmos network. This is also seen that the unique voters and the votes chose “yes” with more than 65% of the users and “No with veto” holds the second place where 18% of the total voters stands with it.
The chart here shows the average ATOM balance of the voters and it is seen that the average is 526 ATOMs and with the total number of users ranging 58k.
The chart here shows the influence of the whales in the voting to see if 1/3 of the voters who voted for “notwithveto” . Bu it is seen that most of the voters hold between 10-100 $ATOM tokens in their wallets while there were just 3 whales holding more than 10,000 $ATOM in their wallets.
There are instances where the voters have changed their votes and chosen other options hereby the chart foresees them on the basis of the experience.
Right:
The pie diagram shows the first-time voters and the usual voters where just less than 8 % of the total shares were held by the first-time voters and the rest 92% of the votes were done by the normal voters or experienced ones.
Left:
The chart here shows if the users have changed or not changed their voting and it is seen that most of the voters who did not change their votes and among the users who changed their votes 4357 are experienced and 108 were first-time users.
The total votes and the voters in proposal #82 of the cosmos networks over time are charted here and it is seen that there is a decreasing trend in the voters who voted for “yes” while with the other voting options , the trend seems pretty similar with no big fluctuations.
The other proposal IDs and the voters and the votes in the cosmos network . Well comparison of these proposal ids does not make much attention but thatt this gives a great idea on the total behavior of the voters in the cosmos network.
The chart here shows the total votes and the voters in the proposal #82 where the various type of the voters are considered and charted here and it is seen that most of the votes were done by the normal voters while the other types include validator voters and first time voters.
INFERENCE
The overwhelming number of votes cast in opposition to Proposal #82 with a veto led to its rejection. The bulk of those who voted for Proposal #82 were seasoned (not first-time) voters, however, 7.63% of the total voters were voting for the first time ever on Cosmos Hub. Non-first-time voters had a higher percentage of votes cast with a NO or NO WITH VETO choice than first-time voters, which suggests that they were primarily responsible for proposal #82's defeat. Since its involvement is significantly higher than the usual participation in Cosmos Hub proposals, proposal #82 is one of the most well-liked recent Cosmos Hub proposals. Additionally, this proposal's voting session saw the highest level of participation in government. Following Proposal #82, the governance engagement on Cosmos Hub substantially declined. Vote-switching was mostly carried out by experienced (not first-time) voters in this election as well since their percentage was higher than that of first-time voters. One of the primary reasons this plan may be rejected is that the majority of vote-changers (more than 50% of them) altered their vote from YES to NO WITH VETO.
Discord Handle: sarath#5345
Twitter Handle: sssnand98