Governance Grind

    Question:

    As Terra 2.0 has expanded, we’ve seen a number of governance proposals come to light. Analyze the voting activity on the most recent 5 proposals. Can you identify any trends or patterns in voting?

    Bonus: Dig up and compare the text of 2 governance proposals. What do you think of these proposals? What would have made them stronger or likelier to gather more votes? Do you have any improvements to recommend?

    Overview of analysis

    This dashboard divided into the following parts:

    • Voting performance on Terra (general and over time)
    • Behavior of voters on Terra
    • Detailed analysis on 2 of the proposals

    Terra network:

    After the sudden and horrific collapse of the Terra network, many investors are worried about the future of the stablecoin Terra and the Luna Classic blockchain. Although Terra Network was completely destroyed, the founders quickly launched a new version called Terra 2.0.

    Finally, it was decided that a new network (and not a fork of the previous network) would be formed and its native coin would be awarded to the holders of Terra Classic network tokens. This proposal, which was known as No. 1623 and as "Terra Ecosystem Restoration Plan - No. 2", was finally approved on May 25, 2022 by the majority of the participants (65.5% of the votes). Receipt. A new network called Terra was created with native digital currency Luna (LUNA). The technical name of this chain is Phoenix-1 and the name of its test network is pisco-1. The previous network will continue to work with a new name; This network will be called Terra Classic chain and all its tokens will have the classic extension. Like the previous network, Terra's new network is a member of the Cosmos ecosystem and is based on the Cosmos-SDK development kit and the consensus of Tendermint. This network will no longer have a native stablecoin as before, and the treasury, oracle, and market modules (all three related to controlling the mint process and burning algorithmic stablecoins) have been removed from it.

    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:

    • The voting performance
      • Table→ terra.core.fact_governance_votes
      • Metrics→ vote count, distinct voters, validators or ordinary voters, Vote option distribution, vote per proposal and voter per proposal
    • Voters behavior
      • Metrics→ Switch vote pattern by voters, Participation of voters by count of voted proposals and number of votes
      • Leaderboard of voters and most popular proposals
      • Vote change ratio for various proposals on Terra
    • Conclusion: By aggregating the outcomes of the steps and deep dive into the proposal, draw a conclusion about the voting performance and voters of Terra network.

    Part 1: Voting performance on Terra (general and over time)

    Part 3: Detailed analysis on 2 of the proposals

    Findings:

    Lets dive deeper into the behavior of voters on Terra governance:

    • According to the results, most of the voters have been participated on under 2 proposals and voted under 3 times.
    • The leading voter on Terra governance has been voted about 189 times and the most popular proposals on Terra governance are proposal no.349 and no.986.
    • About 75% of voters remain on their first choice however rest of them changed their first voting option on proposals.
    • The most popular vote change path belong to YES→NoWithVeto and its indicate that voters has different opinions regard to proposals.

    Findings:

    The first part of this analysis represents the voting activity on Terra goveranance:

    • According to the outcomes, the average captured vote per proposal is about 251 votes. Also, the average participated voter per proposal is about 79 unique voters.
    • The highest count of captured vote on Terra network happened on October 10, 2022 with 915 votes.
    • The highest count of participation (voters) on Terra governance happened on June 6, 2022 with 712 unique voters.
    • The general vote and voter distribution on Terra governance indicate that over 50% of captured votes belong to “YES” option.
    • Also, about 13.6% of captured votes have used to show their opposition to the proposed proposal.

    Part 2: Behavior of voters on Terra

    Findings:

    The precise analysis on proposal no.349 has been done in this part.

    • This proposal is about the upgrade of Terra classic to re-enable IBC and has been passed by over 83% of votes.
    • This proposal was open to vote on June 3 to10, 2022 and captured 797 votes.
    • About 15 voters changed their voting option from YES to Abstain during voting period.
    • By voting YES on this proposal, delegators and validators signal that they are in favor of upgrading the legacy Terra chain to re-enable the previously closed IBC channels `channel-1` (osmosis), `channel-20` (juno) and `channel-49` (crescent).
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...

    Proposal no.349

    Upgrade Terra Classic To Re-enable IBC

    Submitted 8 months ago

    This signaling proposal will set the course of a software upgrade that is needed on Terra Classic (Columbus-5), hereinafter called “legacy Terra”, to re-enable IBC functionality to Osmosis and Juno. The IBC channels 1, 20, and 49 (corresponding to Osmosis, Juno, and Crescent, respectively) were set to be “CLOSED” state as part of the v0.5.20 upgrade of Terra core software ( In order for these channels to be re-enabled, their states need to be set to “OPEN” via a similar software upgrade. - By voting YES on this proposal, delegators and validators signal that they are in favor of upgrading the legacy Terra chain to re-enable the previously closed IBC channels `channel-1` (osmosis), `channel-20` (juno) and `channel-49` (crescent) - By voting NO on this proposal, delegators and validators signal their dissent about upgrading the legacy Terra chain for above stated reasons, or are against the way this proposal has been put up. Why we use TerraV2 governance: the current state TerraV1 governance is in is debatable. This is a way of consulting the “new” Terra community, which was formed from two snapshots, and represents the stakeholders of the legacy Terra chain in an agreeable way. If this proposal passes, the next step will be to prepare the software upgrade and propose it on legacy Terra, where legacy delegators and validators can have a final agreement.

    Proposal no.986

    Terra Phoenix Airdrop

    Submitted 5 months ago

    This Community Pool spend proposal seeks to airdrop LUNA to users who did not receive the correct allocation of LUNA at Genesis due to technical constraints or issues associated with indexing. A vote “YES” will signal support for this token allocation from the Community Pool. Agora: 

    Conclusion:

    The Terra network is one of the leading platforms in the field of providing collaborative governance specially after destructive events occurred on May, 2022. This participation enables people activity on in various aspects of Terra network through governance.

    • The rate of participation in the proposals related to the community benefit and In order to compensate the losses of those who suffered is higher than that of other proposals, and its main reason is the re-building of new network and public trust on this ecosystem. It also depends on the importance of the proposal in the future of the network in order to investigate the participation of voters in proposals of Terra.

    • The future will undoubtedly test the flexibility of today's centralized institutions, and its orientation will be towards greater personal empowerment and greater participation of all relevant stakeholders rather than the few who are responsible for decision-making.

      Even in institutions that are more suited to operate under centralized governance models, factors such as checks and balances play a key role in promoting transparency and accountability among decision makers.

    Author:

    Credited by MZG

    Discord handle: m.zamani#0361

    Twitter handle: @GargariZamani

    db_img
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...

    Findings:

    The detailed analysis related to proposal no 986 has been done in this part.

    • This proposal discussed the Terra Phoenix Airdrop and seeks to airdrop LUNA to users who did not receive the correct allocation of LUNA at Genesis due to technical constraints or issues associated with indexing.
    • This proposal was started on August 26 to September 2, 2022 and passed by over 96% of votes.
    • Approximately, all of the voters on this proposal did not switched the voting option and remain at their first choice.