Try Quests to earn cryptoInfamous 82
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". 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? 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? Finally, have ATOM holders re-delegated their staked ATOM as a result of the vote? Highlight any interesting patterns in re-delegation activity. BONUS: Post your dashboard on Twitter and tag @flipsidecrypto and any relevant accounts!
Quick introduction
What Is Cosmos?
Cosmos (ATOM) is a decentralized network of independent blockchains, each powered by Byzantine Fault-Tolerant (BFT) consensus algorithms. $ATOM is the native staking token of the Cosmos Network. The Cosmos vision is to build an “internet of blockchains” that can scale and interoperate with one another.
What Is Proposal #82?
We suggest a new Cosmos Hub vision statement, a companion to the 2017 article that focused on IBC-connected chains. The Hub's original vision has been realized with the Cosmos Stack (Tendermint, IBC, and SDK) and critical technologies for secure economic scalability (Interchain Security and Liquid Staking). This document signals the transfer to the Cosmos Hub as an infrastructure service platform and ATOM's renewed role as preferred collateral within the Cosmos Network. Interchain Scheduler and Interchain Allocator are app-specific features that accelerate interchain growth. Interchain Scheduler is a cross-chain block space marketplace that earns MEV money. Interchain Allocator uses these profits to capitalize new Cosmos chains, stimulate interchain collaboration, and extend the Scheduler's addressable market. After a 36-month transition phase, exponential issuance is lowered to a consistent amount of ATOM released per month. The report proposes forming Cosmos Councils to create and operate the plan. Cosmos Councils compose the Cosmos Assembly, an ATOM-accountable entity responsible for setting yearly goals, resourcing, and administering Cosmos Hub activities.
Elections
The following summarizes the vote options and proposal:
Yes, you want to ratify the proposed paper.
No, You don't like the paper's content. Explain why on Cosmos Hub.
NO WITH VETO - A 'NoWithVeto' vote indicates a proposal is spam, irrelevant to Cosmos Hub, disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or violates or encourages violation of Cosmos Hub's rules of engagement. If more than a third of votes are "NoWithVeto," the plan is rejected and deposits are burnt.
ABSTAIN - You contribute to quorum but don't vote for or against the measure.
Methods
📝 In this dashboard, at first, I displayed complete information about Proposal #82 and the statistics of votes separately, and I also showed the changes of this proposal and what happened to #82 over time. Information is displayed based on the number of votes and the number of voters.
↘️ I got the description of votes using the following code:
case
when TRY_PARSE_JSON(c.attribute_value) :option = '3' then 'No'
when TRY_PARSE_JSON(c.attribute_value) :option = '1' then 'Yes'
when TRY_PARSE_JSON(c.attribute_value) :option = '2' then 'Abstain'
when TRY_PARSE_JSON(c.attribute_value) :option = '4' then 'No with Veto'
else null
end as Description
☑️ I then compared Proposal #82 with the other proposals as well as the voters of Proposal #82 based on whether they had already voted on another proposal or if it was their first time.
➡️ In the next part of the dashboard I checked the ==Vote Switching==, and got the number of votes switches. I also displayed these changes daily and over time. At the end of this section, I also analyzed the balance of the wallets that change their vote and accordingly how many times they change their vote.
:a: Grouping code based on the number of switches:
case
when "Number of Switch" = 1 then '1 Switch'
when "Number of Switch" > 1
and "Number of Switch" < 5 then '2 - 5 Switches'
when "Number of Switch" >= 5
and "Number of Switch" < 10 then '5 - 10 Switches'
when "Number of Switch" >= 10 then 'More 10 Switches'
end as Type
:b: Grouping code based on balance wallets:
case
when Balances > 0
and Balances < 5 then 'Less Tha 5 ATOM'
when Balances >= 5
and Balances < 20 then '5 - 20 ATOM'
when Balances >= 20
and Balances < 50 then '20 - 50 ATOM'
when Balances >= 50
and Balances < 100 then '50 - 100 ATOM'
when Balances >= 100
and Balances < 1000 then '100 - 1,000 ATOM'
when Balances >= 1000
and Balances < 10000 then '1,000 - 10,000 ATOM'
when Balances >= 10000 then 'More Than 10,000 ATOM'
end as Grouping
➡️ Finally, I checked the balance of the wallets that voted in Proposal #82 and checked their changes over time.
🔢 Tables used in this dashboard:
> :one: cosmos.core.fact_msg_attributes > > :two: cosmos.core.fact_transfers
Conclusion
-
By examining and analyzing the data and charts of this dashboard, we can conclude that 58.4K voters voted about 70.5K in Proposal #82. Of these votes, 49.6K voters, i.e. 76.9% of the addresses, voted "Yes".
-
Also "No with Veto" got about 15.1% of the votes. The interesting thing is that the percentage of "No with Veto" votes has increased significantly over time and about a few days after the beginning of the voting until the end of the voting, and the "Yes" votes have decreased.
-
And we saw that, Proposal #82 has been very well received compared to the rest of the proposals and is in the third place in terms of the number of votes and in the fifth place in terms of the number of voters. Also, about 7% of the voters of Proposal #82 were new and it was their first time to vote. Of course, the old voters gave relatively more favorable votes.
-
According to the above information, in terms of Vote Switching, "Yes To No with Veto" ranks first with 42.3% and about 3212 users have changed their vote from "Yes" to "No with Veto". Also, It can be clearly said that the highest number of vote switches is related to smaller whales that hold 100 to 1000 ATOM. And comparatively, the wallets with less balance have only changed their vote once.
-
Finally we concluded that, 28.6% of voters belong to the "100-1,000 ATOM" group, and 6,285 wallets hold more than 10,000 ATOMs. Looking at the daily and weekly charts, it can be seen that the groups with more balance have increased over time and the holder users who have less than 5 ATOMs are decreasing. But the number of "Yes" votes is more related to "Less Tha 5 ATOM" group.
Thanks for reading!
This analysis was created on 2022–12–12 for a bounty at Flipside Crypto by Hesam to answer the following questions: #Cosmos - 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". 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? 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? Finally, have ATOM holders re-delegated their staked ATOM as a result of the vote? Highlight any interesting patterns in re-delegation activity.
BONUS:
All data used are from Flipside Crypto.
Twitter:
Based on Number of ==Voters
Based on Number of ==Votes
:bar_chart: Daily:
:bar_chart: Daily:
💹 Analyze
Good! According to the numbers and charts above, it can be said that 58.4K voters voted about 70.5K in ==Proposal #82==.
Of these votes, 49.6K voters, i.e. 76.9% of the addresses, voted "Yes". Also "No with Veto" got about 15.1% of the votes.
The interesting thing is that the percentage of "No with Veto" votes has increased:chart_with_upwards_trend: significantly over time and about a few days after the beginning of the voting until the end of the voting, and the "Yes" votes have decreased:chart_with_downwards_trend:.
Based on Number of ==Voters
Based on Number of ==Votes
💹 Analyze
As it is known, Proposal #82 has been very well received compared to the rest of the proposals and is in the third place in terms of the number of votes and in the fifth place in terms of the number of voters.
Also, about 7% of the voters of Proposal #82 were ==new== and it was their first time to vote. Of course, the old voters gave relatively more favorable votes.
:bar_chart: Daily:
Vote Switchers Balance (ATOM)
💹 Analyze
According to the above charts, in terms of Vote Switching, "Yes To No with Veto" ranks first with 42.3% and about 3212 users have changed their vote from "Yes" to "No with Veto". You can also view and compare the changes related to each item on a daily basis during voting.
It can be clearly said that the highest number of vote switches is related to smaller whales:whale2: that hold 100 to 1000 ATOM. And comparatively, the wallets with less balance have only changed their vote once.
:bar_chart: Daily:
:bar_chart: Weekly:
Voters Balance (ATOM) Based on Vote Option
💹 Analyze
In this section, you can see the balance of voters' wallets of Proposal #82. 28.6% of voters belong to the "100-1,000 ATOM" group, and 6,285 wallets hold more than 10,000 ATOMs. Looking at the daily and weekly charts, it can be seen that the groups with more balance have increased over time and the holder users who have less than 5 ATOMs are decreasing. But the number of "Yes" votes is more related to "Less Tha 5 ATOM" group.
