Algorand Governance Period 2 Voting

    Question 34: Algorand's 2nd Governance Voting Period Ran From January 31st to February 28th 2022(https://governance.algorand.foundation/governance-period-2), lets take a look at how wallets voted for or against xGovs. Show wallet votes over time Which had more individual wallet votes, A or B? Show the voting result(A vs B) based on the ALGOs committed by wallets for this governance period.

    Loading...

    Introduction

    Overview

    The Algorand Foundation is committed to a fully decentralized Algorand ecosystem under the belief that a governance structure that allows the Algorand community to impact the most important economic, technical, and policy decisions is fundamental to the long-term stability and continued growth of the Algorand ecosystem.

    The Foundation proposes taking the next significant step along this path by creating a mechanism for the Governor community to put forward measures to be voted on by creating a new tier of Expert Governors (xGovs)

    Creating a tier of Expert Governors (xGovs)

    These governors, via decentralized aggregation mechanisms such as a DAO, will have the power to put forward measures for quarterly governance votes. These measures will still be voted on by the current governance platform, which will not change.

    Votes can be casted for one of two options:

    • Option A: The Governors support the creation of a new DAO-based tier of governance, xGov, with the power to formulate, evaluate and propose measures to be put to vote. (Create an xGov Tier)

    • Option B: The Governors prefer the Algorand Foundation continue in its current role of curating and exclusively proposing measures for community vote, in addition to facilitating the vote itself. (The Foundation keeps the sole power to propose measurements)

    The Foundation supports option A.

    Methodology

    Following the hint in the bounty, I queried the algorand.transactions table to look for transactions with a decoded note string which contained the string af/gov1:j% and identified

    • af/gov1:j[5,"a"] as A

    • af/gov1:j[5,"b"] as B

    I obtained 0,123% of null votes, so I analysed the decoded string a bit further. Since there are some votes with a af/gov1:j[3,"a"] decoded result, I added _ as wildcards to allow for these votes to be counted as well

    Some of the strings were decoded with a string like af/gov1:j{"com":6700000000} which in the hint is identified as commitment transaction. So querying for this string format only yielded 1 results for the governance period analysed, so this line is not going anywhere.

    With all addresses and tx that voted identified, I cross-checked the list with the algorand.asset_transfer_transaction and the algorand.payment_transaction tables to look for the amount of ALGO commited to each vote. Unfortunately, this analysis didn't yield any results.

    Results

    Individual votes

    The results show a majority of individual votes for option A. Still some null votes (0,0751%) even after the wildcard addition.

    Loading...

    Conclusion

    From the official results I obtain a deviation of 7%. I was not able to find the amount of ALGo commited to each vote, and that was a bit frustrating. I will need to learn better how the governance in ALGO works and try to get the same results as the Algorand foundation Page in the future.

    Loading...

    Tx identified as commitment governance vote by af/gov1:j{"com":% decoded note. No results obtained for the ALGO commited voting.

    db_img