Introduction

What is Cosmos?

Cosmos (ATOM) is a cryptocurrency that powers an ecosystem of blockchains designed to scale and interoperate with each other. The team aims to "create an Internet of Blockchains, a network of blockchains able to communicate with each other in a decentralized way." Cosmos is a proof-of-stake chain.

What is Governance?

Governance tokens are a type of cryptocurrency that allow tokenholders to vote on the direction of a blockchain project. The primary purpose of governance tokens is to decentralize decision-making and to give holders a say in how the project is run.

More info on Proposal #82.

What is required from this analysis?

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.

Proposal #82 compared to other recent proposals

Conclusion

• Most of the voting activities on Prop #82 were received in the consecutive days of Oct31-Nov2 after that number of voting interactions declined significantly and users tend to not participate in governance as much as early Nov and after first week of November number and daily share of voters voting vetoed No increased until it became more than half of the voting options(before it was YES votes) and despite the fact that 78% of the votes were YES the 15%, 10.8K caused the infamous Prop82 to be rejected.
• Less than 8% of the voters changed their votes and 42%, 3.2K of them changed heir votes from YES to vetoed NO.
• This prop seems to be monitored by more dedicated voters with more than 95% of the voters being experienced(regular) voters and only 3% being first time voters.
• Vote changers were also on average holding roughly twice as much ATOM(527) as other voters this could indicates that users whom were more involved with Cosmos did not saw this prop as a win for themselves but there was only 4 voters with a balance of more than 10K ATOM voting so whales did not had as much of an impact on the props voting while more than 65% were holders of less than 10ATOMs.
• Props 69 and 65 with combined votes of roughly 190K voters, recording ~200K votes were the most controversial props on COSMO. Prop #82 accumulated a decent amount of voting activities on the platform with 58K voters recording 70K votes seems that the prop 82 had a remarkable votes to voters ratio and its voters considered a crucial proposal which it ended up being rejected after it started to get vetoed No in the second week of Nov after the prop being pass the initial hype around a week by mostly none whales(but relatively high ATOM balance holders) and regular voters.

Thank you for your time!

What is answered in this analysis?

• Prop #82 voting composition3
• Prop #82 vote changings
• Prop #82 First time voters
• Prop #82 voters held ATOM(Influential voters)
• Proposal #82 compared to other recent proposals

Methodology

The needed data regarding Prop 82 on Cosmos was extracted via mainly using recently announced tables osmosis.core.fact_governance_votes and cosmos.core.fact_msg_attributes the extracted data on proposal were filtered by using proposal_id=82 as Prop #82 ID, all of these tables were provided by Flipsidecrypto database and to make these raw extracted data more comprehensible all types of proper charts and graphs were utilized.

Prop #82 voting composition

• Nov1 had overall highest number of overall votes and votes being yes(13.8K) after that number of the prop 82 dropped significantly.
• Share of votes disagreeing with the proposal in the second week of the Nov after that vetoed NO votes starred to consist more than half of the votes and overall 56K(78%) of the votes were yes an 15%, 10.8K were vetoed NO.

Prop #82 vote changings

• Oct31-Nov2 had highest vote changes. these votes started to decrease after and 42%(3.2K) of the votes were changed from YES to No with veto and 16.4%, 1.2K was change from Yes to No and only 19% changed their votes from being against the proposal to being pro it.
• More experienced voters trended to be more incline changing their votes compared to first time voters and overall only 7.6% out of total of 58K voters changed their votes.

Prop #82 First time voters

• Nov 1 with 938 first time votes had the highest number of first time voters in a day. Although number of voters on declined After ward but its compositions, (first timers and more experienced) stayed some what the same till Nov14 which more than 20%(19% of the votes) of the voters recorded were from first timers .
• Same mentioned chart trend is true for votes as well with Nov 1 recording 13.4K votes form experienced voters and 940 from first time voters.
• the steady flow of the new gained voters indicated that prop82 managed to have a stable and steady hype and marketing/awareness campaign behind it with a harmonized daily new voters behind it.
• More than 95% of the votes were done by regular voters and only 3.2% were new voters and 1.7% were validators could indicates that the prop had a community of relatively dedicated users behind it.

Prop #82 voters held ATOM(Influential voters)

• On average voters are holding around 270ATOM in their wallets, while users changing their votes are more experienced users this could be proven by them holding around twice of the ATOM(527) compared to average voter.
• Overall 65%, 6.6K of the voters are holding less than 10 ATOM in their wallet followed by 28% holding between 10-100 tokens and Only 4 voters had more than 10K ATOMs .
• Seems that people who vetoed No on the Prop are not having relatively the same as other vote type ATOM balance distribution among them and whales did not had much influence on the vetoed No votes.

• Proposal 82 with 58K total voters is have the fifth largest voters among recent proposals and with 70.5K votes is the third largest prop by number of received votes so prop 82 could be considered a controversial and hyped proposal considering mentioned number of the votes vs its voters.

• Proposal 65 and 69 with 87.7K and 85.8K voters accumulated the most number of voters, respectively these two props also recorded a total of 105K(69) and 93K(65) as votes so props 69 and 65 can be named as the most popular/trended props in the Cosmos platform.