When delegators un-stake from one validator and move to another, is there any pattern to where they re-stake? Are users more likely to re-delegate after their validator votes in a way they disagree with? Do they re-align their stake with validators whose values reflect their own?

How do validator votes change over the course of a proposal? Share any interesting voting statistics you find.

Examine any voting propositions here (example: Prop 82) as a use case to explore these questions.

Dashboard Introduction

tables used in this dashboard:

1.osmosis.core.fact_governance_votes

2.osmosis.core.fact_daily_balances

3.osmosis.core.dim_labels

Reviewed

1. Vote Weight of each vote option
2. Voter of each vote option
3. Vote weight per day
4. Average balance among voter
5. Distribution of people who changed their vote by change type
6. The avg wallet size of the people voting on Prop #82 by vote type
7. Average Casting Vote by Voter & Vote Type
8. New voter vs regular voter
9. Top ATOM balance change votes
10. Prop 82 total Votes vs. other Proposals
11. Prop 82 total Voters Count vs. other Proposals

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

The graphs above show the number of voters, total votes and the total number of voters, including those who voted more than once.

Additionally, 1,046 unique voters cast 1,196 "yes" votes.

• 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 left, new users continued to participate later in the second week of the voting period.

• Voters leaning toward "yes" account for 65% of the total, while those leaning toward "no" account for only 6.2%.

• In each vote type, more than 70% of voters have wallets with a size of less than 5 ATOMs, and the smallest portion of voters' balances are more than 100 ATOMs, according to the average wallet size of people voting on proposal #82.

• Over 90% of voters in each grouping were considered regular voters, and the minority of voters who were validators overwhelmingly supported ABSTAIN, according to the distribution of voters by voter type.

• Voters who changed their minds in the last row are most heavily represented by the NO with veto to YES change type, while those who changed their minds in multiple ways (YES to NO, No to YES, YES to ABSTAIN, ABSTAIN to YES, and ABSTAIN to NO) make up the smallest proportion of the final row's voters.

  \

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

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 chart on the above compares the total votes of Prop#82 with other proposals.

• As can be seen, the total votes of this proposal was lower than most of other proposals with just 1808 votes

• The chart on the above compares the total voter of Prop#82 with other proposals.

• As can be seen, the total voter of this proposal was lower than most of other proposals with just 1565 votes

Conclusion

The graphs above show the number of voters, total votes and the total number of voters, including those who voted more than once.

Additionally, 1,046 unique voters cast 1,196 "yes" votes.

Voters leaning "Yes" make up 65 percent of the total, while those leaning "No" make up just 6.2 percent.

In each type of vote, more than 70% of voters have wallets smaller than 5 ATOMs, and according to the average wallet size of people voting in Proposition #82, the smallest portion of voters' holdings is more than 100 ATOMs. Is.

More than 90 percent of voters in each group were considered regular voters, and a minority of valid voters overwhelmingly supported ABSTAIN based on the distribution of voters by voter type.

Many top ATOM 20 owners have changed their minds. Many of them had a balance of less than 50k ATOM, which changed the vote from yes → no with veto. Overall, all of the top 20 ATOM holders changed their vote to No With Veto

The size of new voters is not significant compared to experienced voters.

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

The total number of votes for this proposal was less than most of the proposals with only 1808 votes. The total number of voters of this proposal was less than most of the proposals with only 1565 votes.