what is osmosis

The introduction of automated market makers (AMMs) ushered in a new era of crypto-economic utility and bonding curve applications. AMMs have become an essential element of DeFi infrastructure, and every new ecosystem must have an exchange with liquidity pools to support basic tokens swaps and the creation of supplementary financial products.

Osmosis is an AMM protocol created using the Cosmos SDK. The project was announced in October 2020 and launched on Jun. 19th, 2021. Its core developers include Sunny Aggarwal, Josh Lee, and Dev Ojha. Osmosis' vision is that rather than aiming for a one-size-fits-all strategy for AMMs and their liquidity pools, it could provide a sandbox for AMM development. The protocol enables developers to iterate on new, customized AMM designs by using the existing liquidity pools and modules already running on the network. It also features an on-chain governance system that allows each AMM pool's stakeholders (i.e. liquidity providers) to control and direct their pools.

Osmosis is currently the most dominant, accounting for roughly 40% of the total inter-blockchain transfers on Cosmos. IBC compatible blockchains (such as Cosmos, Regen, Akash, and more) can be seamlessly swapped on Osmosis, with fees generally under $1.00.

To best understand the Osmosis value proposition, it’ll help to first explore the Cosmos ecosystem and some DeFi & DEX basics.

1. Cosmos: Cosmos is an “Internet of Blockchains” network in which developers can build interoperable dApps. In the ideal Cosmos world, Ethereum apps will play nicely with Binance Smart Chain apps, and so on. But for now, projects that adhere to the IBC (below) will be able to seamlessly communicate with each other and send tokens for minimal transaction fees.
2. **The __IBC __**is a protocol that relays messages between various independent distributed ledgers. It was initially created to connect Tendermint‐based blockchains.
3. TC is a Byzantine-Fault Tolerant engine for building blockchains. It allows developers to write their applications in any language, and then replicate the app globally. There is no need to wait for transaction confirmations; a transaction is immediately finalized once included in a block.
4. Automated Market Maker (AMM): This popular DEX protocol relies on algorithms to price cryptocurrency assets in liquidity pools, filling the role of a centralized market maker in an order-book method platform.

Sovereignty and heterogeneity are two key pieces of the Cosmos (and Osmosis) mission, and you’ll see them echoed in almost every feature.

Technically speaking, Osmosis is a proof-of-stake blockchain with a decentralized exchange application, specifically designed for IBC

Cross-Chain Native

Osmosis is designed to be cross-chain native, and like many Cosmos projects, it’s built to be IBC compatible at its foundation.

Osmosis plans to branch out to non-IBC enabled chains, such as Ethereum-based ERC20s (via the Althea gravity bridge), Bitcoin-like chains, and alternative smart contracting platforms (via custom pegs.)

Sovereignty and Unified Incentivization

Sovereignty is a big deal for the Cosmos folks. Osmosis derives its sovereignty from its architecture, as well as from the collective sovereignty of liquidity providers –each LP is incentivized to simultaneously maintain their autonomy and provide liquidity by different mechanisms.

Osmosis is unique within the Cosmos ecosystem (and other DEXes) because it aligns liquidity providers, DAO members, and delegator interests with a variety of incentives. For one, staked liquidity providers have sovereign ownership over their pools, and they can adjust parameters based on market conditions and how competitive the pool is among others. Nothing in the AMM is hard-coded– LP providers can vote to change any pool parameter, such as swap fees, token rates, reward incentives, and curve algorithms.

How to Use Osmosis

There are a few ways to use Osmosis, and it’s best to follow the money. There are three categories of fees on Osmosis:

1. Anyone who transacts on the chain will pay transaction fees. These fees are variable and based on the storage and computation costs, and the minimum gas cost proposed. These fees are distributed to OSMO stakers and validator operators. 
2. Anyone who swaps assets on the DEX will pay swap fees, which are determined by each liquidity pool’s parameters and trade size. These fees are distributed pro-rata to that pool’s liquidity providers. 
3. Liquidity providers who pull their liquidity out of a pool will pay exit fees. The LP shares are then burned, and the value is distributed to the remaining liquidity providers.

So, anyone can use the Osmosis DEX functionality to swap IBC-compatible tokens like ATOM, ION, AKT, LUNA, and other compatible chains like CRO. 

about proposal 362

By voting YES, OSMO stakers signal their support for a 12 month renewal of the Osmosis Grants Program with Reverie continuing as Grants Lead.

By voting NO, OSMO stakers voice their dissent for a 12 month renewal of the Osmosis Grants Program.

The Osmosis Grants Program (OGP) has been active for 6 months, and is now looking to renew for an additional 12 months with some changes to the program. The details are outlined below.

Details

• The OGP will continue its core objective of issuing grants to contributors that can deliver long-term value to Osmosis.
• The OGP will add to this objective the incubation of new subDAOs and Strategic Initiatives to tackle protocol functions.
• Reverie will continue to serve as Grants Lead and is requesting 55,000 USDC and 25,000 OSMO per month in renewed compensation.
• Reverie will add more transparency through monthly reporting, calls, and other frequent reports.
• Jeremy Parish and Monetsupply will be added as two new signers on the OGP multi-sig.

As part of this proposal, the community will have an option to terminate Reverie’s involvement with the OGP after 6 months.

about dashboard

in this dashboard I want to analyze the :

• top voter with most number of vote
• about the vote
• percentage of the vote
• how change the vote
• percentage of the the changing vote
• number of depositor
• amount of the deposit
• compare proposal by vote
• compare proposal by voter
• about the balance of the proposal 362

in this part I want to analyze the top voter that had the most vote number.

as you see in this graph the min vote is one vote for each address, as you see the max vote for the voter is more than 15 and after that is 14.

so in this part we see that the max vote number is 17 for one address and as you see just low than 10 voter had more than 10 vote and as you see most of the voter had less than 5 vote in the proposals so it shows that most of the user do not participate in the proposal votes and it not good for the proposals.

as you see in this part I found the number of the vote for each voter that had at least one vote for this proposal, and after this part I want to found that this voters give what vote for the proposal and see that which one had more than other.

lets start

as you see in the previous part we see that most of the user had low than 5 vote in the proposal, and in this part I want to check the result of the vote.

as you see most of the vote related to the YES, as you see more than 80 % of the vote related to the YES,

and in the second place we see the NO as you see the percentage of the NO is about 7 % and NO had 1714 vote in this proposal,

and in the second place we see that abstain with about 5 % and in the last place there is NO WITH VETO with just 760,

so we see that most of the vote related to the YES and low of the vote related NO WITH VETO

after this part I want to analyze the change of the vote, as you see some voter change their vote and I want to find them that voter usually change their vote to with part.

as you know in this part I want to analyze that the vote change from which part to which part.

as you see the most percentage is related to the change from yes to no by 22.3%,

so as you know the NOs vote was in the second place so in this part we see that more than 20 % of that vote related to the yes in the past.

and in the second place we see that NO WITH VETO to NO by about 14 % again in this part we see that the NOs vote increase because of this part again, so up to know we see that about 37 % of the NOs vote related to the other part and ABSTAIN to NO was about 4 %,

so we see that 41 % of the NOs vote related to the other part .

and about 11.7 % of the YES change to the NO WITH VETO.

and we can add that about 40 % of the YES vote change to the other part.

from this part we get the more important result, after this part I want to analyze the depositor number by proposals.

in this part I want to see that most of the proposals had how many depositor.

as you see most of the proposals had just 1 depositor and some of them had 2 depositor and just 5 proposal had more than 1 depositor.

and as you see the max number of the depositor related to the proposal 317 by 6 depositor.

so in this part we explain the depositor for each proposal.

after this part I want to find the amount of the deposit in proposals and I want to compare them with each other in the next part.

in this part we want to analyze the amount of the proposal.

as you see in the previous part most of the proposal had just 1 depositor and again in this part we see that most of the amount is about 1600 $ .

and as you see the most amount is related to the 317 proposal with 1941 $ and in the previous part we saw that the proposal 317 had the most number of the depositor, and in this part we see that the most amount related to itself.

and as you see the less amount is related to the 313, 314, 334 and 344 by about 400 $ and in the previous part we see that the depositor of this proposal is one.

so in this part we analyze the amount of the proposal and after this I want to analyze the proposals by vote and voter number lets analyze them.

in this part I want to analyze and compare the proposal 362 with other proposal by number of vote.

as you see in this part proposal 362 range is normal and this number is 24.23 K

and as you see the most vote number is for the proposal 353 by 44.97 K vote.

and the low number is related to the proposal 306 by 4116 vote.

and the other interesting thing is that by the increasing the number of the proposal average of the vote increase.

after this part I want to analyze the voters to see the detail.

in this part I want to analyze the voter number and compare the proposal 362 with min and max number of voter.

as you see in this part proposal 362 range is normal and this number is 22.26 K

and as you see the most vote number is for the proposal 353 by 31.60 K vote.

and the low number is related to the proposal 306 by 4003 vote.

and as a final step I want to analyze the votes reaction in the amount part.

in this part I want to analyze the vote that the voter had what amount.

as you see in the upper graph we see that most of the address of the vote had low that 100 % (about 80 %)

and just low of the vote had more than 10K $. ( low than 1 %).

so we see that most of the vote related to the low than 100 $.

conclusion

in this dashboard I analyze the proposal 362 and in some case I compare this proposal with other and the result is :

• in the first part we see that most of the voter had low than 5 vote and just low than 10 voter had more than 10 vote.
• the max vote number is 17.
• in the vote participate we see that most of the vote related to the yes by more than 80% of the vote and the less vote related to the NO WITH VETO by low than 5 % of the total vote.
• in the change part we see that about 40 % of the NO vote related to the other part because other vote change to the NO by each other.
• in the change part we see that about 40 % of the yes vote changed to the other part because YES vote change to the other vote by each other.
• most of the proposal had just one depositor and proposal 362 is include of the most part.
• the most number of the depositor is related to the proposal 317 by 6 depositor.
• in the amount of the deposit in the proposal we see that the max amount is related to the 317 proposal.
• the min amount was related to the 313,314,334 and 344 by 400 $, and this proposal had one depositor.
• in the vote part we see that proposal 362 had the 24.23 K vote.
• the max vote is for the proposal 353 and the min vote is for the proposal 306.
• in the voter part we see that proposal 362 had the 22.26 K voter.
• the max voter is for the proposal 353 and the min voter is for the proposal 306, like vote part.
• most of the votes amount was low than 100 $ in the proposal 362 and just low than 1 % of the votes had more than 10 K $.

thank you because of you attention