Try Quests to earn crypto1. Introduction
Not all proposals are the same. There are more technical proposals, like software/client updates, pool incentives proposals, and community pool spending proposals. Therefore, not all users are expected to vote on all proposals, and that’s where the deleagation system comes into play. I might have some good understanding of how a protocol works, and I’ll want to vote for proposals on which I feel confortable taking a decision, but since I don’t have a clear understanding on client updates and some more technical stuff, it’s my work to look out for a validator which is commited to the chain, active and well intentioned. Then, I’ll be able to overwrite the votes on which I feel like taking part of, and can be safe knowing I can trust the validator I’ve delegated for the other proposals.
In this case, proposal 362 is one of a kind. The Osmosis Grant Program (OGP) is a multi sig wich takes care of the community pool, and analyzes proposals of projects which would like to collaborate/build with Osmosis, and has the ability to grant prizes to them. This of course is a delicate subject, more so now that the industry has entered a period of high uncertainty and liquidity is not easy to maintain. Some voices on crypto twitter both validators and delegators have expressed concerns regarding the amount asked on this proposal, and there has been a lot of noise. In this dashboard, I’ll do my best to compare this proposal to previous ones, look at voting behavior and extract some interesting insights.
We’ll get back to that point later on, but now let’s jump back to the proposal we’re analyzing. I’ll approach the differences in the following sense:
- Proposal numbers
- Overall participation. Any difference compared to the ones listed above?
- Validators
- Overall outcome of validator voting
- Have they changed their voting option? How so?
- Have they behaved differently than on the different proposals listed above?
- Regular wallets
- Overall outcome of regular voting
- Have they changed their voting option? How so? Are they whales?
- Have they behaved differently than on the different proposals listed above?
- Bonus points
- Has any validator voted way differently than their delegators?
With this outlined, let’s shine light into the data!
2. Methodology
What are we looking out here? So as explained above, proposal 362 has been controversial, and we’re trying to see if there has been any different behavior with the voting process of this proposal comared to other proposals.
A reasonable first starting point to look out would be seeing the different proposal IDs which have been submitted with the type “Community pool spend” signaled. As we can se below, there have been 22 proposals so far with this tag.
If we take the total number of distinct wallets staking (without taking into account their weight) and total number of individual wallets voting, we see a total participation of 9.65% for proposal 362. If we dig a little deeper and try to segment it by weight (amount staked), we see the highest participation among those wallets which have between 100 and 500 Osmo staked (12.78% participation), while those who have between 10 and 50 have the lowest participation.
On the right hand side, I’ve displayed the same info for any selected proposal ID the reader would like to compare with. At the start of the dashboard, just type the proposal ID you’d like to compare to, and the table and charts on the right will change accordingly.
You can play changing the proposal ID above to compare with proposal 362 (default selected proposal: 332)
The donut chart on the right shows the distribution of validator votes on proposal 362. It was almost equaly divided between “Yes” (43%) and “Abstain” (42%). Only 14% voted “No”/”No with veto”. This takes into account the last option each validator chose. Interestingly through this dashboard I’ve re-discovered the weighted vote (see this transaction from validator dForce).
Trying to get more insights, we can also see the validators who voted more than once. A total of 17 validators voted twice, 4 validators voted 3 times, and 4 validators voted 4 times. The average amount of Osmo delegated by those who voted 3 times is the highest; an average of 6M Osmo delegated.
How does this compare with previous votes? Just as a brief comparison, we see on the left side the same as on the chart above, but displayed by all proposal IDs mentioned in the introduction (community pool spend), including proposal 362 for comparison.
We can see that this proposal has been by far the one that has had more changing votes than the previous ones in this subject. Only proposal 134 saw one validator changing options up to 4 times, and proposal 162 saw 12 validators changing options 2 times, but the proposal we’re analyzing has seen a total of 26 validators changing voting options.
We can do the same exercise as the one we’ve done so far, but for non validators. In this case, we see that most of the votes ended up in “YES” (54%), but the least voted option was “Abstain” (8.27%) compared to the 42% from validators.
Regarding voters who voted multiple times, we see wallets which voted up to 17 times, and 736 wallets which voted twice for instance. The average Osmo staked by those wallets is shown on the right, next to the donut chart. Those voters who voted twice hold on average 1200 Osmo staked, and the ones that voted multiple times (4 or more) hold small amounts of staked Osmo.
3. Conclusions
I’ve compared proposal 362 which will determine the use of community pools to those proposals which were indeed community pool spending.
-
Proposal 362 has the highest participation among those wallets which have between 100 and 500 Osmo staked (12.78% participation), while those who have between 10 and 50 have the lowest participation.
\
Validators
- Validator vote was split between "Yes" and "Abstain".
- 17 validators voted twice, 4 validators voted three times, and 4 validators voted four times. Out of those, the ones which voted three times had the highest amount of voting power on average (6M Osmo).
- If we compare them with previous proposals regarding community pool spending, this proposal outstands in vote changing.
Non validators
- They voted for "Yes" with a total of 54% of votes. In contrast with validator votes where abstain was also one of the outcomes, non validators second (24%) and third (13%) voting options were "No" and "No with veto".
- 736 wallets voted twice, and one wallet voted up to 17 times. The amount of delegated Osmo drops for those wallets which voted more than 4 times.
- Surprisingly, this wasn't the craziest vote for non validatrs; proposals 186 and 182 for instance had more vote swapping.
Finally, validators'choice and delegators choice for each validator is displayed, for everyone to analyze whether or not they were aligned.
Once again, we can compare to the previous votes displayed by all proposal IDs mentioned in the introduction (community pool spend), including proposal 362 for comparison. In this case, for regular wallets this has not been the craziest proposal. If we llok at proposals 182 and 186, up to 2500 wallets changed voted multiple times, and in the case of proposal 176, something interesting happened where two wallets voted a total of 1904 and 8944 times. Stange.