Try Quests to earn cryptoInfamous 82
As we can see, Prop #82 has a higher proportion of "NO WITH VETO" votes than all other proposals (15.9% of all votes for Prop #82 are "NO WITH VETO," compared to 15.4% for all other proposals) yet, Prop #82 has the second kind of No with veto votes.
The majority of users approve the idea in the early days of voting, but after a few days, especially in the last days, the number of users who voted "No with veto" significantly rose, which is quite suspicious.
In the top 50 validators, Prop #82 received considerably more "No with veto" votes than any other proposition, with a rate of 36.6% compared to 7% for all other measures.
Furthermore, the fact that validators are engaged on this proposal raises suspicions.
This graph displays the top 50 validators' switched votes, and it is obvious that some validators switched their votes to Bo with veto. and the Node Gurdians validator changed its vote twice, with a final "No with veto" vote!
As can be seen, there were more Yes votes cast in the initial voting days than in the last voting days. Additionally, in the last voting days, there were more No votes cast with vetoes than on other days, particularly on November 14.
Prop #82 earned significantly more "No with veto" votes than any other proposal in the top 1000 whales, with a percentage of 34.1% against 11.5% for all other initiatives.
Additionally, it seems suspicious that validators are working on this proposal.
32 whales with veto power among the top 1000 $Atom holders switched their votes from Yes to No. I consider this to be normal in certain ways. Additionally, among the top 1000 Atom whales, there are some first-timers who cast Yes or No votes with vetoes, with the number of these individuals being almost equal.
More votes were cast in favour of keeping the status quo than in the first and second voting days. The whales' wallets filled up with "No" ballots in the last days of voting. However, these figures are lower than the top 50 validators. Consequently, top validators are quite sceptical of this proposal whereas whales are not very suspicious of it.
Redelegations increased the first day after Prop #82, but they gradually declined over time among both all users and users who voted on Prop #82, indicating that everyone who wished to alter their validators did so on the first day following Prop #82.
Those who voted Yes on Prop #82 receive the majority of redelegations, and users who voted No on Prop #82 with a veto receive the remainder. Additionally, the number of redelegators climbed the day after Prop. #82 and then gradually fell after that.
SG-1 received the most redelegations from these validators after Prop #82. "Stake.fish" is the second validator with the most redelegations coming from, "Imperator.co" had the most redelegations going to it, "Allnodes.come" is the second validator with the most redelegations being absorbed.
After Prop #82 SG-1 had the most number of redelegations from this validators . and the second one with most redelegations from is 'Stake.fish 'and 'Imperator.co' had the most number of redelegations to this validator and 'Allnodes.come' is the second validator with most absorbed redelegations
More people switched their votes for Prop #82 to No with Veto than for any other initiative, and we didn't see this type of moving to No with Veto in any other proposition. and it indicates that suspicious activity is taking place in Prop #82.
The number of first-time voters who cast a No with veto vote on Prop 82 was higher than the average number of votes cast on all other initiatives, and the proportion of first-time voters who cast a No with veto vote on Prop 82 was 15.9%, compared to 6.92% for all other proposals.
Well, we can see the whales' votes (more than 100K $ATOM) that there were more users who cast No with veto votes than any other proposal, which indicates that whales are taking action on this proposal.
The number of No with veto votes are more than in wallets with more balance both in Prop #82 and also in all other proposals but we can see that the number of No with veto votes in whales on Prop #82 is far more than all other proposals
In both graphs, there are more yes votes than any other votes on average, but in Prop. #82, we can see that there are more no votes than any other votes on average, especially among users who have more money in their wallets.
there are 4 validators between 50 top validators that Prop #82 is their first votes and also something is interesting that no validator change it’s vote to yes in #prop 82 but there are many validators that change their votes to No with Veto
In the switching votes on the top whales of $Atom, we are unable to detect any suspicious trends against Validators. Actually, this is a relatively common occurrence when votes are being switched. And it's noteworthy to see that just 2 of the top 50 whales—out of 50—changed their votes from yes to no with veto.
Background:
Governance in the Cosmos Hub has gotten spicy, to say the least. Despite gaining the support of some of the most influential names in the space, Prop #82 was rejected after more than 1/3 of voters chose "NoWithVeto".
\n
Take a look at governance behavior surrounding Proposal #82 - specifically first time voters and vote switching. Is it possible to identify any key "swing voters" (ie ATOM whales or influential validators) that really turned the tide of the vote? Were any of them first-time voters?
\n
What is the average wallet size (in ATOM) of the people voting? Of the people who changed their vote? Further, is Prop #82 significantly different than other proposals from an engagement perspective? Analyze voting for Cosmos #82 vs. other recent governance proposals in the Hub. Has overall governance participation increased or decrease since Prop #82?
\n
Finally, have ATOM holders re-delegated their staked ATOM as a result of the vote? Highlight any interesting patterns in re-delegation activity.
Method:
In this dashboard I used 4 sections for my analysis include:
1-Votes distribution of regular users
2-Top 50 validators votes
3-$Atom whales votes
4-re-delegation after Prop #82
==It is crucial to note that using Osmosis tables for this question is completely incorrect; instead, you should use Cosmos tables.==
in the first section I used these analysis:
1-Votes distribution of Proposal #82 by unique voters
2-Votes distribution of all Proposals by unique voters
3-Daily normalized Votes distribution of Proposal #82 by vote weight
4-Daily Votes distribution of Proposal #82 by unique voters
5-vote switching by number of voters on all proposals
6-Prop #82 vote switching by number of voters
7-First time voters vote on Prop #82
8-First time voters vote on all proposals
9-Total $ATOM balnce of voters on Prop #82
10-Total $ATOM balnce of voters on all proposals
11-Normalized $Atom balance of Prop 82 voters by their vote option
12-Normalized $Atom balance of all proposals voters by their vote option
13-Number of votes on Prop #82 by vote options and wallet balance
14-Number of votes on all proposals by vote options and wallet balance
\n In the second section I used these charts and analysis:
1-Top 50 validators votes on Proposal #82
2-Top 50 validators votes on all proposals
3-How many of top 50 validators voted on Proposal #82
4-How many of top 50 validators voted on all proposals
5-Top 50 validators number of votes on Proposal #82
6-Top 50 validators vote switching by number of validators
7-First time voters on Prop #82 between top 50 validators
8-Daily Top 50 validators votes on Proposal #82
\n In the $Atom whales votes I mentioned these analysis:
1-Top 1000 $Atom holders(whales) votes on Proposal #82
2-Top 1000 $Atom holders(whales) votes on all proposals
3-How many of top 1000 $Atom whales voted on all proposals
4-How many of top 1000 $Atom whales voted on Proposal #82
5-Top 50 $Atom whales number of votes on Proposal #82
6-Top 1000 whales vote switching by number of wallets
7-First time voters on Prop #82 between top 1000 $ATOM holders
8-Daily $ATOM whales votes on Proposal #82
\n And in the last part I mentioned these analysis:
1-Number of redelegation before and after Prop #82
2-Number of dedelegators who voted on Prop #82 before and after Prop #82
3-Prop #82 voters redelagations over time
4-Prop #82 voters redelagations
5-Top 50 validators number of redelations from and to the validators after Prop #82
6-Top 10 validatiors with most redelegation from them
7-Top validators with most redelegations to them
Introduction:
Why do we need a new direction for the Cosmos Hub?
Up until now, the Hub has not solidified its place as a major schelling point in the ecosystem.
In particular, new projects don’t necessarily hold ATOM and therefore are not incentive-aligned with the Hub.
ATOM 2.0 aims to solve this problem.
The idea is to move ATOM from a purely monetary asset with speculative premium and only loose ties to the rest of the IBC economy, to a reserve asset for the Interchain – one which is held by a multitude of incentive-aligned projects, and backed by tangible value and revenues.
In sum, the aim is to tie ATOM’s value to the growth of the ecoystem as a whole, without infringing on Cosmos’ values of sovereignty and non-coercion.[1]
1-Prop #82 has the second kind of "NO WITH VETO" votes, while having a larger percentage of "NO WITH VETO" votes than any other proposal (15.9% of all votes for Prop #82 are "NO WITH VETO," compared to 15.4% for all other proposals).
2-Compared to other initiatives, more people changed their votes for Prop #82 to No with Veto, and we didn't see this sort of change in votes for any other initiative. and it suggests that Prop #82 is the scene of questionable activity.
3-More users submitted No with veto votes than any other proposal in the whales' votes (more than 100K $ATOM), demonstrating that whales aredoing something on this proposal!
4-Prop #82 earned significantly more "No with veto" votes than any other proposal in the top 50 validators, with a percentage of 36.6% versus 7% for all other initiatives.
5-there are 4 validators between 50 top validators that Prop #82 is their first votes and also something is interesting that no validator change it’s vote to yes in #prop 82 but there are many validators that change their votes to No with Veto
6-Prop #82 received considerably more "No with veto" votes (34.1% vs. 11.5% for all other initiatives) than any other initiative in the top 1000 whales.
7-Redelegations surged on the first day following Prop #82, but they decreased over time among both all users and users who voted for Prop #82, showing that everyone who wanted to change their validators did so on that day.
8-After Prop $82 SG-1 received the most redelegations from after Prop #82. "Imperator.co" had the most redelegations going to it.
[1]:
