Try Quests to earn cryptoProposal Number 82 - Full details
\
🔎 findings :
Depending on how much it was accepted by the participants, this proposal managed to get 53.23k positive votes and 10.8k negative votes. You can also see the number of voters for each option in this chart.
Also, these graphs show that the content of this proposal is attractive to both groups of voters for the first time and other groups, and in both groups, a higher percentage of participants chose the yes option.After that option, no vote is in the second place
🔎 findings :
During the two weeks of voting, you can see how many people have voted daily Its trend was that participation was high at the beginning of the period, then decreased and increased again, but not as much as at the beginning of the period.
On average, 4700 people participated in voting daily.
Also, you can see daily changes between the two groups of voters for the first time and the other group. The number of riders increased for the first time at the end of the interval.
🔎 findings :
In this section, we have compared this proposal with other proposals in terms of the number of votes, voters, and the amount of deposits.
It is interesting to know that after Proposal 69 and 65, it had the highest number of votes, which was equal to 70.5k.
But it ranks 5th in terms of the number of voters. In terms of the amount of deposit, it is the same with the rest of the proposals except The proposal is equal to 71 and 61, which is equal to 64
🔎 findings :
When the average values were checked, it was observed that the average number of voters and votes in the voting group for the first time was more than the other group.
Also, the average number of votes per voter and the average number of votes per day were higher in this group (voters for the first time).
🔎 findings :
Maybe checking how the number of yes and no votes was obtained is effective in the analysis of this proposal, the graphs in this part show how the voting status of people was in voting. 92.4% of people have not changed their vote and 90% of people have voted only once.
Among the two groups of voters, we can see that in both groups, a high percentage of participants did not change their vote, but if we want to calculate as a percentage, in the group of experienced voters, the percentage of vote change was higher than the other group.
🔎 findings :
In this section, you can see the top 10 voters in terms of the number of vote changes. 2 people have recorded the most number of changes with 8 changes.
You can also see that 50% of voters had between 10-100 atom tokens, then 22% had 1-10 atoms. Among the people who changed their vote, 54% had 10-100 votes.
On average, each voter had 270 atom tokens.
🔎 findings :
In this part, we will talk about whether people have redelegated after voting or not. As you can see, 94% of people have not done this And their daily changes also show that redelegating has decreased on average.
The volume of redelegating on November 7 was much higher than the rest of the days and has the highest volume on this date (at the time of proposal 82).
🔎 Conclusion :
in this proposal, 7.63% of the voters voted for the first time in this blockchain.
participation was high at the beginning of the period, then decreased and increased again, but not as much as at the beginning of the period.
On average, 4700 people participated in voting daily.
- this proposal managed to get 53.23k positive votes and 10.8k negative votes. You can also see the number of voters for each option in this chart.
Also,the content of this proposal is attractive to both groups of voters for the first time and other groups, and in both groups, a higher percentage of participants chose the yes option.After that option, no vote is in the second place
-
The person who voted the most was equal to 55 votes. And on average, each person has voted 1.2.
-
It is interesting to know that after Proposal 69 and 65, it had the highest number of votes, which was equal to 70.5k.
But it ranks 5th in terms of the number of voters. In terms of the amount of deposit, it is the same with the rest of the proposals except The proposal is equal to 71 and 61, which is equal to 64
-
92.4% of people have not changed their vote and 90% of people have voted only once.
Among the two groups of voters, we can see that in both groups, a high percentage of participants did not change their vote, but if we want to calculate as a percentage, in the group of experienced voters, the percentage of vote change was higher than the other group.
-
57.5% have changed their vote from yes to no with vote. After them, the change from no to vote to yes has a higher percentage.
-
2 people have recorded the most number of changes with 8 changes.
You can also see that 50% of voters had between 10-100 atom tokens, then 22% had 1-10 atoms. Among the people who changed their vote, 54% had 10-100 votes.
On average, each voter had 270 atom tokens.
-
94% of people have not done this And their daily changes also show that redelegating has decreased on average.
The volume of redelegating on November 7 was much higher than the rest of the days and has the highest volume on this date (at the time of proposal 82).
Proposal 82
- From Proposal 82 Proposers:
- 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.
Method
In this article, we will examine the cosmos blockchain and proposal 82 from different aspects. First, we will talk about general information about the number of voters and votes. Then we will examine this proposal with the rest of the proposals.
We know how many people are recognized as first-time voters and compared to the rest of the participants, how many people voted yes, how many people changed their vote and what changes they made, the amount of voters' tokens. And we will check the status of delegating people.
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.
