The Cosmos Hub ("Gaia") has an on-chain governance mechanism for passing text proposals, changing consensus parameters, and spending funds from the community pool. This repository provides background information on these different kinds of proposals and best-practices for drafting them and proposing them on-chain.

The Cosmos ecosystem emphasizes governance mechanisms in order to achieve the vision of an ecosystem of interoperable blockchains supported by interchain infrastructure and services on the Cosmos Hub and beyond. The intent is that Cosmos Hub is operated by the community of code development teams supported by the Interchain Foundation, validators and ATOM token holders as a form of distributed organization.

The Proposal Process: Two Periods

#1. Deposit Period(Deposits, Burned deposits(Deposits are burned only when proposals are vetoed i.e. 33.4% of voting power backing the 'NoWithVeto' option))

2. Voting Period

The voting period is currently a fixed 14-day period. During the voting period, participants may select a vote of either 'Yes', 'No', 'Abstain', or 'NoWithVeto'. Voters may change their vote at any time before the voting period ends.

Voting power is determined by stake weight at the end of the 14-day voting period and is proportional to the number of total ATOMs participating in the vote. Only bonded ATOMs count towards the voting power for a governance proposal. Liquid ATOMs will not count toward a vote or quorum.

Inactive validators can cast a vote, but their voting power (including the backing of their delegators) will not count toward the vote if they are not in the active set when the voting period ends. That means that if I delegate to a validator that is either jailed, tombstoned, or ranked lower than 125 in stake-backing at the time that the voting period ends, my stake-weight will not count in the vote.() \n

1. In this bounty we were aske to take a look at governance behavior surrounding Proposal #82.

   ==Summary of Proposal #82(ATOM 2.0: A new vision for Cosmos Hub)==

   We propose a new Cosmos Hub vision document, a counterpart to the 2017 paper which focused primarily on the network of IBC-connected chains. With the creation of the Cosmos Stack (Tendermint, IBC, and SDK) and the development of key technologies for secure economic scaling (Interchain Security and Liquid Staking), the original vision of the Hub has been fulfilled. This document marks the transition to the next phase of the Cosmos Hub as an infrastructure service platform, and a renewed role for ATOM as preferred collateral within the Cosmos Network. It describes two pieces of app-specific functionality, the Interchain Scheduler and Interchain Allocator, which together form a flywheel for accelerating interchain growth. The Interchain Scheduler is a cross-chain block space marketplace, which generates revenues from cross-chain MEV. These revenues are used by the Interchain Allocator to capitalize new Cosmos chains, foster interchain collaboration, and thereby expand the total addressable market of the Scheduler. This paper also describes a new issuance regime optimized for Liquid Staking, where after a 36 month transition period, exponential issuance is reduced to a constant amount of ATOM issued per month. To administer the proposed plan, the paper describes the formation of Cosmos Councils, domain-specialized entities that carry out development and operations. Cosmos Councils together form the Cosmos Assembly, a body that is accountable to ATOM holders, responsible for setting yearly goals, resourcing, and administering work undertaken on behalf of Cosmos Hub.

   ==Governance Votes==

   The following items summarize the voting options and what it means for this proposal:

   • YES - You approve of and wish to ratify the contents of the proposed paper
   • NO - You don’t approve of the contents of paper. Please indicate why on the Cosmos Hub forum.
   • NO WITH VETO - A ‘NoWithVeto’ vote indicates a proposal either (1) is deemed to be spam, i.e., irrelevant to Cosmos Hub, (2) disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or (3) violates or encourages violation of the rules of engagement as currently set out by Cosmos Hub governance. If the number of ‘NoWithVeto’ votes is greater than a third of total votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.
   • ABSTAIN - You wish to contribute to quorum but you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal.

From Oct 31st to Nov 15th, 70.6 K votes had been submitted by 58.5 K voters.

The highest count of votes was submitted in the first two days of proposal activation. And then during days, participation decreased and reached to its lowest level on the 10th days of proposal activation. But in the last 3 days of proposal activity, participation increased and from 1648 votes on Nov 9th(1544 voters), reached to 4367 votes on Nov 13th (4218 voters).

In all days of voting period except the last 4 days, YES votings had the highest count of votes in each day. But in the last 4 days of voting period, NO WITH VETO votes increased sharply and was more than the other votes. The highest count of this type of vote was on Nov 13th.

Count of NO votes was less than 240 votes in all days except the first day of vote period, which 843 NO vote was submitted.

Non validator voters submitted the highest count of votes in comparison with first time voters and validator voters.

14% of total votes from non validator voters was NO WITH VETO.

20% of total votes from first time voters was NO WITH VETO.

23% of total votes from validator voters was NO WITH VETO.

If we analyze count of voters based on their vote changing actions, we can see that from total 58.5 K voters, less than 15% of voters changed their votes.

From total vote changers(about 8 K), more than 66% of them changed their vote only 1 time and 15% of them changed their vote 2 times. So, less than 20% of vote changers, changed their vote more than 2 times. The highest count of vote changings belongs to non validator voters. It is good to mention that only non validator voters, changed their votes 4 times or more.

The highest count of vote changers, changed their vote from YES to NO WITH VETO. This action was done with most number of non validator vote changers. This was also the top vote change action by first time voters and validators.

The top vote changing actions by validators was YES to NO WITH VETO action and ABSTAIN to NO WITH VETO action.

In the above charts you can see count of votes and voters on each proposal on Cosmos hub.

As you see, count of votes on Proposal 38 to 59 was less than 9 K for each(less than 7 K voters for each), but from proposal 60, count of votes and voters started to grow and reached to its highest level during proposals 65 and 69(more than 90 K voters and 100 K votes). But by proposal 70, participation on proposals decreased and reached to 32 K votes on proposal 73.

From 2 proposals before proposal 82, count of votes and voters started to grow again and reached to a high for proposal 82, but after this proposal, participation on next proposals decreased sharply.

The average $Atom balance of voters who participated in Proposal #82 was 680 $Atom. most count of voters had the balance of 10 to 100 $Atom. In other word, the main share of voters had the balance less than 100 $Atom. Only 119 voters had the balance greater than 100 K $Atom.

The average balance of voters who changed their vote was 2007 $Atom.

In the above charts, you can see count of redelegators and their redelegate transactions.

As you see, count of redelegate transactions and wallets that redelegated, increased during the proposal 82 and reached to its highest level in the mid days of proposal 82 period. But by end of proposal 82, count of this action decreased sharply. There was a spike in the day just after the proposal 82 ended.

In days before proposal 82 begins, volume of redelegations was less than 100 K in most of the days and reached to more than 200 K $Atom in only 4 days. During days after proposal 82 ended,  volume of redelegations was less than 50 K $Atom. There was 2 spike in days after proposal 82, which the daily volume of redelegations reached to 240 K and 520 K $Atom.

During proposal 82 activation, volume of redelegation was very volatile, it had a big spike on Nov 7th that this volume reached to 8 M $Atom and in the next day decreased to 235 K.

In total we can say that the average volume of redelegations before proposal 82 was 368 $Atom, for proposal 82 was 1.5 K $Atom and for proposals after 82, was 215 $Atom.

Conclusion

From Oct 31st to Nov 15th, 70.6 K votes had been submitted by 58.5 K voters.

The highest count of votes was submitted in the first two days of proposal activation.

Non validator voters submitted the highest count of votes in comparison with first time voters and validator voters.

14% of total votes from non validator voters was NO WITH VETO.

20% of total votes from first time voters was NO WITH VETO.

23% of total votes from validator voters was NO WITH VETO.

From total 58.5 K voters, less than 15% of voters changed their votes.

From total vote changers(about 8 K), more than 66% of them changed their vote only 1 time and 15% of them changed their vote 2 times. So, less than 20% of vote changers, changed their vote more than 2 times.

The highest count of vote changers, changed their vote from YES to NO WITH VETO.

The average $Atom balance of voters who participated in Proposal #82 was 680 $Atom.

The average balance of voters who changed their vote was 2007 $Atom.

Count and volume of redelegate transactions and wallets that redelegated, increased during the proposal 82.

The average volume of redelegations before proposal 82 was 368 $Atom, for proposal 82 was 1.5 K $Atom and for proposals after 82, was 215 $Atom.

****