Question in detail:

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 decrease since Prop #82?

Finally, have ATOM holders re-delegated their staked ATOM as a result of the vote? Highlight any interesting patterns in re-delegation activity.

Overview of analysis:

This dashboard divided into the following parts:

• The general and overtime stats of voting on Proposal no.82
• Identification of voters based on fixed or switched vote option
• ATOM balance of voters
• Comparison of voting pattern for proposal no.82 vs other recent proposal
• Re-delegation activity

Methodology:

The data provided by Flipside has been used to handle this analysis. To handle this investigation the following steps have been passed as below:

• Step 1: The voting performance on proposal no.82
  • Table→ from cosmos.core.fact_msg_attributes where MSG_TYPE ilike '%proposal_vote%'
  • Metrics→ vote count, distinct voters, Vote option distribution, top voters by vote count and vote weight
• Step 2: classification of voters by changing vote options
  • Metrics→ Switch vote pattern by voters, switching vote over time
• Step 3: ATOM balance of voters
  • Metrics→ Average ATOM held by various voter types
• Step 4: Comparison with other recent governance proposals
  • Select proposal over 60 id
  • Try metrics of the previous step
  • Average vote and unique voters per day for proposal
• Step 5: Re-delegation activity
  • Metrics→ Count and volume of re-delegation by various voter types of proposal no.82, Average volume of re-delegation by various voter (switch their option or remain at previous one)
• Step 6: By aggregating the outcomes of the steps and deep dive into the proposal, draw a conclusion about the voting performance and voters of proposal no.82

Cosmos Hub:

Cosmos is a collection of parallel and independent blockchains that can communicate with each other. Cosmos was launched with the aim of increasing scalability and the ability to establish communication between different networks. Currently, the Cosmos ecosystem is a collection of 46 different blockchains that can communicate with each other using the communication protocol developed by this collection. Cosmos ecosystem is a collection of blockchains, which is Cosmos Hub, the first and so far the most important network of this collection, the native digital currency of this network is called Atom (ATOM). In the considered architecture of Cosmos, there are independent and parallel networks that are managed by Tendermint BFT resilient consensus algorithm. Each of these networks is called a zone. On the other hand, there are a number of connection points or hubs that can enable communication between these networks through a communication protocol called IBC. Also, blockchain technical development is easily possible by the innovative framework of this collection called Cosmos-SDK.

There is onchain a module for managing offers. Each offer has an opportunity at the beginning called the deposit period; During this period - which will last up to 14 days - the proposer or other supporters must prepare and deposit a total of 64 atoms. If this amount is deposited before 14 days, this period will be completed, otherwise, if this amount is not provided after 14 days, the provided amounts will be burned. Then we enter the voting period, which has been defined for 14 days. If more than one third of the voters choose the last option (not with the veto), the deposit of the bidders will be confiscated and burned. Also, if the voting does not reach the quorum (40% of all staked atoms), the 64-atom bond will still be burned.

If the voting reaches the quorum of 40%, more than 50% vote for the yes option and the number of "no with veto" voters is less than one third, the proposal will be approved. The voting weight depends on the amount of address stack at the end of the 14-day voting period and is calculated proportionally to the total amount of staked atoms.

Proposal no. 362

Proposal no.82:

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.

• 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.
• Proposer
• Initial Deposit→ 1.000000ATOM
• Total Deposit→ 64.000000ATOM

Part 1: Stats related to Proposal no.82

Findings:

This part contains the stats related to the voting performance on proposal no.82 and the outcomes are as below:

• The highest count of vote and unique voters occurred on November 1st, 2022.
• The option NO WITH VETO has been captured the largest count of votes since November 6.
• The trend of voting changed from YES to NO WITH VETO over the time period of active voting on proposal no.82.
• The top voter on proposal no.82 has been voted 55 times and the top voter with highest voting power has 220 weight.

Part 2: Voter type by Fixed and switched vote

Findings:

Lets find out that voters who change their voting options and draw the path of voting switch:

• The large group of voters remain at their first voting option by 92.4%.
• The most popular vote switch path is YES→NO WITH VETO path with 3366 unique voters.
• About 4466 unique voters have changed their voting options over the time of proposal no.82 active time.
• On November 13, the highest count of vote change occurred as can be seen.

Part 3: ATOM balance analysis

Findings:

The ATOM balance of voters on proposal no.82 has been drawn in this part:

• The average ATOM balance of wallets voted on proposal no.82 is about 1.325 ATOM.
• About half of the voters have balance under 10 ATOM as can be seen.
• The average ATOM balance of voters who change their vote option is larger than fixed opinion voters.

Part 5: Re-delegation activity

Findings:

The re-delegation activity of voters of proposal no.82 has been determined in this part:

• The highest count of re-delegation and wallets happened on November 8 and the largest amount of re-delegation occurred on the November 13 with over 2 million ATOM tokens.
• On November 3rd, the highest share of delegation volume for voters who changed their voting options occurred.
• Most of the re-delegation occurred by fixed opinion voters as can be seen.
• The average volume of re-delegation for voters who change their voting options is higher than fixed opinion voters.
• On the first day of voting on proposal no.82 the highest average re-delegation volume in occurred with 3537 ATOM tokens.

Conclusion:

• The voting performance on this proposal are as same as other recent governance proposals avergely.
• As we know proposal no.82 stands for the transition to the next phase of the Cosmos Hub and voters switched their voting options to avoid passing this proposal rejected it with the majority of votes.
• The voters who change their voting options and want to prevent passing this proposal hold more ATOM tokens than voters remain at their first option.

Useful links:

• Cosmos Hub
• Cosmos governance
• Proposal no. 82

Author:

Credited by MZG

Discord handle: m.zamani#0361

Twitter handle: @GargariZamani

Part 4: Analysis of voting for #82 vs. other recent governance proposals

Findings:

This part concentrated on the comparison of voting performance and characteristics of voters for proposal no.82 and other recent governance proposals:

• Among recent governance proposals, the proposal no.69 has the highest count of votes but unique voters of proposal no.65 was the highest participant count.
• On the period of voting on proposal no.82 the voting performance on that proposal has remarkably high.
• Among recent governance proposals, the considerable number of proposals have not passed and rest of them are passed by vote majority.
• The proposal no.89 has the highest share of voters switched their first voting options among recent governance proposals.