Introduction

• Cosmos is a decentralized network of independent parallel blockchains that aims to create an ecosystem of interoperable blockchains. This allows for the easy and secure transfer of assets between different blockchains, creating a more diverse and decentralized ecosystem. Cosmos is powered by BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint, which provide fast and secure transaction finality.
• Overall, Cosmos offers a unique solution to the scalability and interoperability challenges facing blockchain technology. By creating a network of independent, interoperable blockchains, Cosmos is paving the way for a more decentralized and interconnected future for blockchain. The Cosmos Hub has a way for text proposals to be voted on, consensus parameters to be changed, and funds from the community pool to be spent. So far, votes have been taken on 89 proposals.
• This dashboard is all about proposal #82: ATOM 2.0: A new vision for Cosmos Hub, which has caused a lot of debate.
• In particular, the dashboard tries to figure out what made voters' minds change so quickly from "Yes" to "No."

Voting option glossary

1. Abstain: indicates that the voter is impartial to the outcome of the proposal.
2. Yes: indicates approval of the proposal in its current form.
3. No: indicates disapproval of the proposal in its current form.

• NoWithVeto: indicates stronger opposition to the proposal than simply voting 'No'. If the number of 'NoWithVeto' votes is greater than a third of total votes including 'Abstain' votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.

• The graph displays how the votes changed throughout the course of time. Since the beginning of the 4th of November, we can observe that the percentage of votes that were cast in favor of yes has been continuously decreasing.
• The data also show that during the 4th and 5th of November, there was an increase in the average ATOM balance of voters.
• According to the graph that can be shown below, new users continued to participate later in the second week of the voting period.

The data on the chart above includes:

• Distribution of voter mind-changers
• Distribution of new voter mind-changers
• Distribution of regular voter mind-changers

As can be seen, Yes →No with Veto is the most popular option among all distribution:

• Overall 58.9% of all voter who changed their mind changed from Yes →No with Veto
• Overall 46.1% of all new voter who changed their mind changed from Yes →No with Veto
• Overall 59.1% of all regular voter who changed their mind changed from Yes →No with Veto

We can see that the size of new voters are not significant in comparison with experienced voters.

However, the data shows that most of them voted in the late voting period and more frequently changed their decisions in the second week of voting period.

The scatter charts display balance size of voters who changed their minds.

As can be seen, most of the wallets changed their mind had their balance less than 100K ATOM.

Moreover, most of the wallet changed their mind are regular voter.

The regular voter who changed their mind with the biggest balance has more than 365K ATOM in the wallet.

Conclusion

• The information gathered indicates that the tendency of voters supporting the plan at the beginning of the voting process was reversed after influential voters' decisions were made public between November 4th and November 6th.
• The sudden and unexpected increase in opposition to proposal #82 at the very last minute demonstrates, once again, that so-called "social dynamics from the bottom up" can produce unexpected and abrupt shifts in the status quo. This unpredictability is mostly caused by the fact that people do not make judgments in a vacuum; rather, the interactions they have with other people influence their decision-making. \n

• It's interesting that, unlike at the beginning of the voting period, NoWithVeto votes won out over Yes votes at the end of the period. In the next sections, we'll look at this issue in more depth.

• In terms of voting power and the amount of ATOM voters hold, it's clear that NoWithVeto voters hold, on average, the most ATOM.

Also, there are more new voters among the No and NoWithVeto voters than among the Yes and Don't Know voters.

Voting result breakdown

Methodology

The following tables are used to get data for this analysis:

• cosmos.core

• cosmos.fact_msg_attributes

  \

• Voters who have never cast a ballot before are considered new voters because they are participating in the voting for the first time.

• Voters are considered regular voters if they have cast their vote in at least one proposal prior to the voting on proposal #82.

  \

Voting changer

Comparison

The data on the chart displays the number of votes and voting participants for several proposals on Cosmos

As can be seen from the chart, proposal #82 had more votes and participants than most of other proposals with 70K votes and

The data on the chart displays that many Top 20 ATOM holders changed their minds.

Many of them had balance less than 50k ATOM chose to change the vote from Yes→No With Veto

On the other hand, the largest ATOM holder in the list chose to change his vote to Abstain→ No With Veto

One ATOM holder in the list chose to change his vote to No→ No With Veto

Overall, all top 20 ATOM holder changed their vote to No With Veto