🧠 Methodology

• The tables fact_governance_votes and fact_daily_balances have been used.
• For finding holder type the two table above have been joined .
• More than one vote for a voter means that the voter voted more than once. for finding vote changes we consider first and last vote. For example, in some cases a voter might vote yes, then no, then yes again. we considered yes to yes as a vote change.

\

✅ Observations

More than ==18.9K== of the votes are "YES". That is ==84.9%== of the total votes.==1700== votes (==7.08%== of the total votes) are "No". ==4.88%== of the total votes (==1165==) were "ABSTAIN" (==5.16%== of voters) and ==3.15%== of the total votes were "NO with VETO" (==3.32%== of voters)

More than ==84%== of voters agreed and answered "YES" and ==7.46%== of voters disagreed and answered "NO".

more than ==22.3K== of the users participate in the voting and the total number of votes is more than ==24.2K==! There is only ==1== depositor and the proposal deposit value is ==0.0016== OSMO.

The highest number of votes was recorded on ==November 15== with ==13.118K== "YES", ==266== "NO WITH VETO", ==145== "ABSTAIN" and ==109== "NO".

There is no record for ==November 12th and 13th==.

The lowest turnout was on ==November 11th==. The highest number of “NO“ votes was recorded on ==November 16== with ==729==.

The lowest number of "YES" was recorded on ==November 11th== with ==1==!

These facts can be confirmed again by the "Normalized" diagram!

The "cumulative" chart shows the rate of increase in voting.

As you can see, the "YES" has the highest slope in this diagram.

Question 2:

What is the average wallet size (in OSMO) of the people voting?

Question 3:

What is the average wallet size (in OSMO) of the people voting?

Question 4:

Of the people who have changed their vote more than once? Compare and contrast voting behavior of validators and average users in this context.is this actually true, or is it just big whales/validators causing these swings?

Question 5:

Is Prop 362 significantly different than other proposals from an engagement perspective? Analyze voting for 362 vs. other recent governance proposals.

Section 1:

✅ Observations

The distributions of the OSMO holders were visualized.==10== levels.

1. The first group is called "unicellular". They are the smallest users in terms of wallet size. Their wallet size is between ==0-1 OSMO==! This group consists of most users. In other words, more than ==205.9K== users have been classified into this group.
2. The second group is called "Planktons". This group ranks third in terms of number of users. The size of their wallet is between ==1-10 OSMO==. ==61,233K== users are in this group!
3. The third group are the "shrimps". They are the largest group of users after the "Unicellulars". ==3966== users belong to this group, whose wallet size is between ==10-100 OSMO==.
4. The fourth category is "Carbs". Their community consists of ==7457== users whose "wallet size" is between ==100-1K OSMO==!
5. "Octapus" is the fifth class of users. This group consists of 9338 users whose "wallet size" ranges from ==1K-10K OSMO==!.
6. ==1576== users form the group "Fish" as sixth class. Your "wallet size" is between ==10K-100K OSMO==!
7. The groups "Dolphin" and "Shark" are the seventh and eighth class of users, these groups consist of ==254== and ==46== users, and their "wallet size" is between "==100k-1000k==" OSMO and "==1M-10M==" OSMO, respectively
8. The ninth group of users are the "whales" consisting of only ==5== users! Their wallet size is between ==10M-100M== OSMO!
9. Finally, the largest and most important group of users is the "humpback". Their wallet size is between 100M-1000M OSMO! There is only ==1== user in this group of users!

Based on the All Voters chart:

The ==51.1%== of voters (==9155==) are from the group of "Unicellular"! (First place)

==22.1%== of the voters (==3966==) are from the group of "carbs"!

The "Shrimps" are the third group to vote! They consist of ==16.8%== of voters (==3002==).

==6.07%== of the voters belong to the group of "Plankton" as forth group of voters! This means that ==1088== of the users who belong to the "Plankton" group take part in the vote!

==3.27%== of the voters (==585==) are from the group "Octopus". Fifth tank belong to the this group of users!

==101== users from the group "Fish" take part in the voting. They make up ==0.564%== of the total voters. The sixth place belongs to this group

==0.106%== of total users are "Dolphins". The ==19== users of this class take part in the voting and reach to the seventh place!

The classes "Sharks", "Whales" and "Humpbacks" do not take part in this vote!

Based on the “Yes Voters” chart:

==60.8%== of "Yes voters" (==9019==) are Unicellulars. ==16.6%== are Carbs (==2458 Users==). ==14%== of total "Yes voters" related to the Shripms (==2073 users==). ==5.96%== is about Planktons (==885 users==). ==2.2%== of "Yes voters" are Octopuses (==327 users==). ==0.452%== of "Yes voters" are Fishes (==67==), and ==0.0674%== (==10 votes==) of total "Yes voters" related to the Dolfins.

Based on the “ABSTAIN Voters” chart:

==47.1%== of "Yes voters" (==505 users==) are Carbs. ==31.2%== are Shripms (==334 Users==). ==7.18%== of total "ABSTAIN voters" related to the Planktons (==77 users==). ==6.72%== of "ABSTAIN voters" are Octopuses (==72 users==). ==6.06%== is about Unicellulars (==65 users==). ==1.4%== of "ABSTAIN voters" are Fishes (==15 users==), and ==0.373%== of total "ABSTAIN voters" related to the Dolfins (==4 vote==).

Based on the “NO Voters” chart:

==49.1%== of "NO voters" (==767 users==) are Carbs. ==39.9%== are Shripms (==467 Users==). ==8%== of total "NO voters" related to the Octapuses (==125 users==). ==7.36%== of "NO voters" are Planktons (==115 users==). ==3.39%== is about Unicellulars (==53 users==). ==1.98%== of "NO voters" are Fishes (==31 users==), and ==0.32%== of total "NO voters" related to the Dolfins (==5 vote==).

Based on the “NO with Veto Voters” chart:

==54.2%== of "NO with VETO voters" (==397 users==) are Carbs. ==23%== are Shripms (==168 Users==). ==13%== of total "NO with VETO voters" related to the Octapuses (==95 users==). ==4.1%== of "NO with VETO voters" are Planktons (==30 users==). ==3.55%== is about Unicellulars (==26 users==). ==1.64%== of "NO with VETO voters" are Fishes (==12 users==), and ==0.546%== of total "NO voters" related to the Dolfins (==4 vote==).

A close look at these charts shows that:

The first rank of “Yes Voters“ are belong to the “Unicellular” class. As explained above, their wallet size is between ==0-1 OSMO==!

But The “Carb“ class has the first rank in the “No Voters“, “ABSTAIN voters“, and “NO with VETO Voters“! Their wallet size is between ==100-1K OSMO==!

This fact shows that most users, who belong to the smallest users, agree with the "362 Proposal", while the class of "Carb" and "Shrimp" users, who belong to the "Intermediate Users", do not agree to this proposal!

✅ Observations

Based on "Average voter balance":

The average wallet size of the

"No with VETO" voters is ==1869,806 OSMO==.

"ABSTAIN voters": ==1855.325 OSMO==.

"No Voter": ==1595.828 OSMO==.

"YES voter" is ==375.1377 OSMO==.

And the average wallet size of the "All Voters" is ==610.2621 OSMO==.

It is clear that the "NO with VETO voters" take the first place in this table and the "ABSTAIN voters" and "NO voters" take the second and third place respectively.

In addition to “Average voter balance“, The “Average number of participating on total proposals“ has been represented in this section

The “Average number of participating on total proposals“ shows:

For “All voters“ is ==79.12478==.

For “ABSTAIN voters“ is ==102.0186==.

(It means that users who have “ABSTAIN vote“ in the 362 proposal, averagely ==102.0186== vote in other proposals!)

For “No voters“ is ==95.21873==

For “No with VETO voters“ is ==90.51047==

For “YES voters“ is ==76.04474==

✅ Observations

To illustrate the answer to this question, the voting dates of the last ==100== proposals have been visualized.

7== charts were created to explain this question. Although we show data from the last 100 proposals, we use data from the last ==10== proposals to compare the ==362== proposal to the others from an engagement perspective.

The recent governance of ==357-367== proposals is explained below.

Based on the "Vote number" diagram

The minimum vote number between ==357-367== proposals is belongs to the ==367== proposal by ==15.761K== vote. The maximum “Vote number” is for ==366== proposal by ==27.671K== vote. The ==362== proposal has ==24.276K== vote and hasn't significant difference with other last ==10== proposals.

The average vote number of this range of proposals is ==23K== approximately!

Based on the "Voter number" figure

The minimum voter number between ==357-367== proposals is belongs to the ==367== proposal by ==15.283K== vote. The maximum “voter number” is for ==366== proposal by ==25.376K== vote. The ==362== proposal has ==22.281K== vote and hasn’t significant difference with other last ==10== proposals.

The average voter number of this range of proposals is ==21K== approximately!

Based on the "YES Vote number" chart

The minimum "YES vote number" between ==357-367== proposals is belongs to the ==367== proposal by ==15.069K== vote. The maximum “YES vote” is for ==366== proposal by ==27.465K== vote. The ==362== proposal has ==20.607K== vote and hasn’t significant difference with other last ==10== proposals.

The average “YES vote number” of this range of proposals is ==21K== approximately!

These three charts show similar trends and the governance of the last ==10== suggestions are very close. So there is no significant difference between these ==10== suggestions in terms of the above metrics.

Based on the "VETO vote number"

The ==362== proposal has the maximum number of "VETO vote number" between ==357-367== proposals.

The minimum "VETO vote" related to the ==366== proposal with only ==8== "VETO vote". But the number of "VETO Vote" in ==362== proposal in ==765==.

The first significant difference!

The second significant difference is on the "NO vote number" chart. The minumum "NO vote" related to the ==363== proposal with only ==40== "VETO vote". But the maximum number of "NO Vote" is belong to the ==362== proposal by ==1719==!

The "NO vote" number in all of the other proposals in the range between ==357-367== is less than ==300==, exceptionally in ==362== proposal!

The situation is a little different in term of "ABSTAIN vote number".

Although the number of "ABSTAIN vote” in the ==362== proposal in the highest in the renge of ==357-367== proposals, but the size of the difference in this case is not as severe as the previous metrics. Except ==362==, all of the proposals "ABSTAIN vote number" is less than ==680==, The "ABSTAIN vote number" of 362 proposal is ==1185==!

The "Average vote by voters" in the range between ==357-367== proposals are similar and it is around ==1.08== approximately. There isnt any significant difference between ==362== and other proposals in this metric!

The "Average balance of OSMO of voters” in ==362== is ==610.2621 OSMO== and in others is ==679.242 OSMO==. As it clear the other proposal voters have more liquidity in their wallets in compare of ==362== proposal's voters.

References:

flipsidecrypto.com

Link of tweet:

✅ Observations

Based on the statistics single charts:

==13.22%== of voters (==1215 users==) change their votes!

This users change their votes ==3210== times ,and the "Average of vote change" is ==2.64==!

If a user vote "YES" (First vote) then change his/her vote to "NO" (Second vote) and change her/his vote to "ABSTAIN" for third time and change his/her vote for the fourth time to the "NO with VETO", we consider the first vote and fourth vote for this user and classify it into the "YES to NO with VETO" voters group!

Meanwhile the ==81.5%== of changing votes (==1197== vote) related to the "YES to YES".

==6.67%== of changing votes (==98==) is "YES to NO" and ==2.93%== of changing votes (==43==) is "YES to NO with VETO"

Here’s the ==top 3== of vote changers addresses and their number of changing vote.

As shown in "Distribution of vote changers based on they are validator or not" Figure, ==97.7%== of this users (==1187== vote changer ) are "Ordinary users" and only ==2.3%== of vote changers (==28== addresses) are Validators!

What is Osmosis?

As “the largest interchain DEX,” Osmosis seeks to compete directly with the user experience of centralized exchanges, such as Coinbase and Binance.

Established in 2021, Osmosis is a multi-chain AMM built for the Cosmos ecosystem. The DEX offers interoperability between blockchains using Inter-blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC) and Axelar, which facilitate the connection of blockchains within a decentralized infrastructure.

What is Cosmos – and how does it relate to Osmosis?

Cosmos Network consists of a “Hub”, which is the central Cosmos blockchain allowing all subsidiary blockchains to communicate; and “zones” which are autonomous and independent blockchains connected to the Hub.

Thanks to the main hub, all of these different Zones (ie blockchains) can communicate, exchange assets and swap data.

By using Cosmos and its cross-chain communication capabilities as a base, Osmosis can offer far broader swapping options to its users, despite having no centralized entity to manage the platform.

Let’s check out the unique features of Osmosis that sets it apart from other DEXs.

Learn more …

Questions:

Governance in the Cosmos ecosystem has been a hot topic of late - first with Cosmos Hub 82 and now in Osmosis. Osmosis Prop 362 is a vote to decide the fate of the Osmosis Grants Program (OGP). Contention aside, there have been many points and counterpoints, AND a ton of vote switching.

Let's take a look at the governance behavior surrounding Proposal 362. On the outside, it seems that a ton of voters have been switching their votes - is this actually true, or is it just big whales/validators causing these swings? What is the average wallet size (in OSMO) of the people voting? Of the people who have changed their vote more than once? Compare and contrast voting behavior of validators and average users in this context.

Further, is Prop 362 significantly different than other proposals from an engagement perspective? Analyze voting for 362 vs. other recent governance proposals.

What is Prop 362?

Osmosis Prop 362 is a vote to decide the fate of the Osmosis Grants Program (OGP). Contention aside, there have been many points and counterpoints, AND a ton of vote switching. Governance in the Cosmos ecosystem has been a hot topic of late - first with Cosmos Hub 82 and now in Osmosis.

Result and discussion: