Part lll :

Part ll :

1. Here we can see the number of votes given in each hour during the vote event.
2. Also in the normalized form we see the votes distributed by their type which clearly the majority of the votes were YES and the same info is proven in the column form of graph on the left.

1. First and foremost the first two graphs that we have here will briefly review the number of voters per week and per proposal in the second graph in balloon form.
2. At Jan 10th of 2022 we see that the number of weekly osmosis voters start to rise to the highest peek on Apr 18th of 2022, this is the most amount of voters during the whole time span.
3. After Apr 18th of 2022 we witness a huge drop in weekly voters until it stops at 26.6k on Nov 14th which is one week after the collapse of FTX.
4. The balloon form in the second row however is a little bit more detailed and tells us how powerful the proposals were based on the population of voters.

1. The hourly votes by vote type show us that on Nov 15th we have the highest number of votes due to higher vote change.
2. Between all the votes that we had on prop 362, 21.9k of them were only one vote and only 291 vote changes happened which is barely 1.5% of the whole vote count.
3. In the column form on the left we can see the results of the vote changes and the vote that voters changed to.

Part l :

what is osmosis ?

Osmosis is a DEX protocol, which means it uses smart contracts to determine the price of digital assets, to produce liquidity via a peer-to-peer (P2P) methodology, and to exact trades between users. This approach to an exchange platform is known as an AMM — a DEX protocol that prices crypto assets in liquidity pools. Contributing tokens to these pools helps foster decentralized liquidity, which is then used to facilitate trades on the exchange. Participating as a liquidity provider (LP) can earn you both trading fees and newly minted LP tokens as incentives for participation.

The Osmosis AMM is unique in that it affords users the ability to create their own liquidity pools, or to duplicate existing ones with their own unique parameters. Because Osmosis is built on the Cosmos ecosystem, users are able to natively trade assets from more than 47 different chains within Cosmos.

While most AMMs today are fairly efficient at providing liquidity in a decentralized manner, they still operate as service-based products: the platform creates pools that are free to join. In the dynamic landscape of decentralized finance (DeFi), this can arguably compromise the efficiency of the liquidity pools available for use. To help solve these issues, the Osmosis AMM was conceived as a “serviced infrastructure” that provides users the ability to tweak the values of tokens and the supply, therefore lowering the barrier to creating custom-built AMMs.

Two primary concepts that drive the Osmosis protocol are sovereignty and heterogeneity. To that end, Osmosis makes use of self-governing liquidity pools. These liquidity pools that exist in Osmosis are not hard-coded and users can use the native Osmosis token (OSMO) to vote on pool parameters and protocols, provide liquidity, and stake. Essentially, it allows holders of the token to decide the make-up of specific liquidity pools, in addition to playing a central role in wider Osmosis protocol governance.

Question

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.

1. The overview above show us the information of voting during prop 362.
2. As you can see all these numbers were last updated on November 22nd and they give us an almost comprehensive detail of the votes, voters and the amount of volume deposited into the proposal #362.
3. The maximum number of votes we had is 24.2k votes with 24.1k validator votes that were given in 2191 hours of vote event.

==To conclude all the info above:==

1. First we can say safely that the most final event has been pretty much crowded and successful for the OSMOSIS management.
2. Judging by the Amount of YES votes we can see the users were actually happy with what they were given in the proposal.
3. Only a minor amount of voters were negative with the results but the no’s with veto are actually considerable amount given they rights on the proposal.
4. Even though the Collapse of FTX left a lot of negative impact on the world of marketing but it is safe to say that OSMOSIS is doing well and recovering astonishingly after the disaster and users are still compassionate about the future of this platform and I have also positive vibes towards it.

Some codes are copied from the following links:

❤ Thanks for reading ❤

Governance

Voting​

Staked OSMO holders are eligible to vote on governance proposals. Browse the available proposals, and use one's staked tokens to cast a vote.

Creating a Proposal​

Governance proposals can be added through CLI. Proposers should use the following format when recommending allocation points for a new gauge:

osmosisd tx gov submit-proposal update-pool-incentives [gaugeIds] [weights]

For example, to designate 100 weight to Gauge ID 2 and 200 weight to Gauge ID 3, the following command can be used:

osmosisd tx gov submit-proposal update-pool-incentives 2,3 100,200

The Proposal Process: Two Periods

1. Deposit Period The deposit period lasts either 14 days or until the proposal deposit totals 500 OSMOs, whichever happens first.

Deposits Deposit amounts are at risk of being burned. Prior to a governance proposal entering the voting period (ie. for the proposal to be voted upon), there must be at least a minimum number of OSMOs deposited (500). Anyone may contribute to this deposit. Deposits of passed and failed proposals are returned to the contributors.

In the past, different people have considered contributions amounts differently. There is some consensus that this should be a personal choice. There is also some consensus that this can be an opportunity for supporters to signal their support by adding to the deposit amount, so a proposer may choose to leave contribution room (ie. a deposit below 500 OSMOs) so that others may participate. It is important to remember that any contributed OSMOs are at risk of being burned.

Burned deposits Deposits are burned when proposals:

Expire - deposits will be burned if the deposit period ends before reaching the minimum deposit (500 OSMO) Fail to reach quorum - deposits will be burned for proposals that do not reach quorum ie. 30% of all staked OSMO must vote Are vetoed - deposits for proposals with 33.4% of voting power backing the 'no-with-veto' option are also burned 2. Voting Period The voting period is currently a fixed 3-day period. During the voting period, participants may select a vote of either 'yes', 'no', 'abstain', or 'no-with-veto'. Voters may change their vote at any time before the voting period ends.