Question in detail:

Governance in the Cosmos ecosystem has been a hot topic of late - first with Cosmos Hub 82 and now in Osmosis. Osmosis Prop 362 is a vote to decide the fate of the Osmosis Grants Program (OGP). Contention aside, there have been many points and counterpoints, AND a ton of vote switching.

Let's take a look at the governance behavior surrounding Proposal 362. On the outside, it seems that a ton of voters have been switching their votes - is this actually true, or is it just big whales/validators causing these swings? What is the average wallet size (in OSMO) of the people voting? Of the people who have changed their vote more than once? Compare and contrast voting behavior of validators and average users in this context.

Further, is Prop 362 significantly different than other proposals from an engagement perspective? Analyze voting for 362 vs. other recent governance proposals.

Overview of analysis:

This dashboard divided into the following parts:

• The general and overtime stats of voting on Proposal no.362
• Identification of voters based on fixed or switched vote option
• Comparison of voting pattern for proposal no.362 vs other recent proposal

Proposal no. 362

Another service in the Kepler application is the possibility of voting through the Governance option. The Cosmas automatic market maker project displays any active governance update proposals for users. Proposals include update parameters and the length of the voting period. It is also possible to view previous governance proposals.

Proposal no.362:

The Osmosis Grants Program (OGP) has been active for 6 months, and is now looking to renew for an additional 12 months with some changes to the program. The details are outlined below.

• By voting YES, OSMO stakers signal their support for a 12 month renewal of the Osmosis Grants Program with Reverie continuing as Grants Lead.
• By voting NO, OSMO stakers voice their dissent for a 12 month renewal of the Osmosis Grants Program.
• Proposer→ Reverie
• Initial Deposit→ 400.000000OSMO
• Total Deposit→ 1,600.000000OSMO

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.362

  • Table→ osmosis.core.fact_governance_votes and osmosis.core.dim_vote_options

  • Metrics→ vote count, distinct voters, validators or ordinary voters, Vote option distribution, top voters by vote count

• Step 2: classification of voters by changing vote options
  • Metrics→ Switch vote pattern by voters, OSMO distribution for various voter types, switching vote over time
• Step 3: Comparison with other recent governance proposals

  • Select proposal over 340 id

  • Try metrics of the previous step

  • Average vote and unique voters per day for proposal

• Step 4: 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.362

Part 1: Stats related to Proposal no.362

Findings:

This part contains the stats related to the voting performance on proposal no.362 and the outcomes are as below:

• About 99.4% of votes captured via ordinary voters compared to validators.
• The highest count of vote and unique voters occurred on November 15, 2022.
• About 85% of captured votes stands for YES option and this proposal has been passed.
• The option NO has been captured largest count of votes on November 16 and 17 but on that dates the YES option has been dominated the voting too.
• The largest group of votes have been voted on YES option on November 15 with over 12.64k unique voters.
• The top voter on proposal no.362 has been voted 17 times and the top validator which is Notional has been voted 4 times on proposal no.362

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 98.7 of voters and 286 unique voters.
• About 25% of validators have changed their voting option and share of them is larger than ordinary voters.
• The most popular vote switch path is YES→NO path with 78 unique voters.
• About 77.4% of voters has OSMO balance under 5 OSMO tokens and its the dominant group and very tiny group (below 1%) of voters have over 2000 OSMO balance in their wallets.
• The OSMO balance of voters that changed their voting options are far larger than fixed vote users as can be seen.

Part 3: Analysis of voting for 362 vs. other recent governance proposals

Findings:

This part concentrated on the comparison of voting performance and characteristics of voters for proposal no.362 and other recent governance proposals:

• Among recent governance proposals, the proposal no.353 has the highest count of votes and unique voters but proposal no.362 has average contribution by voters.
• On the period of voting on proposal no.362 the voting performance on that proposal has remarkably high.
• Among recent governance proposals, the only proposals no 349 and 350 have not passed and rest of them are passed by vote majority.
• The proposal no.356 has the highest share of voters switched their first voting options among recent governance proposals.
• The OSMO distribution among voters of recent governance proposals reveals that the majority of voters has under 5 OSMO balance in their wallets and only proposal no.356 has higher share of 100-500 OSMO balance among proposals.

Conclusion:

• The voting performance on this proposal are as same as other recent governance proposals avergely.
• As we know proposal no.362 stands for the renewal of the Osmosis Grants Program with Reverie continuing as Grants Lead and according to the outcomes, group of validators switched their voting options to avoid passing this proposal but they could not change the majority of votes.
• The voters who change their voting options and want to prevent passing this proposal hold more OSMO tokens than voters remain at their first option.

Useful links:

• Osmosis network
• Osmosis governance
• Proposal no. 362

Author:

Credited by MZG

Discord handle: m.zamani#0361

Twitter handle: @GargariZamani

Osmosis chain:

Osmosis is an advanced Automated Marketer Protocol (AMM) that allows developers to build custom AMMs with robust liquidity pools. Osmosis is built using the Cosmos SDK and uses the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) feature to enable cross-chain transactions. The Cosmos ecosystem follows the "Blockchain as Decentralized Program" architecture; This means that Osmosis is a blockchain connected to cosmos Hub, which is also a decentralized exchange.

Osmosis, with the help of IBC, connects to the entire ecosystem of Cosmos chains and their more than 10 billion dollars of native assets. After supporting active blockchains on the Cosmos hub, the project aims to connect to other chains such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.

The incentives of most active projects in Cosmos are focused on Validators and Delegators; But Osmosis is trying to provide the interests of all participants in the network and those who make deposits. The nodes that have staked the most amount of Osmosis network token are selected as validators. Staked OSMO holders are eligible to vote on governance proposals.