Nullify proposal 75

The cosmos hub has an elegant method for dealing with spam, known as veto. It deals with genuine spam proposals very well. But what does it mean under the hood? Well, what it means under the hood is that you vote for no and you vote for veto at the same time, you’re making two votes. If the tally for veto reaches 33%, the deposit on the proposal is burned and the proposal automatically fails.

Since there is absolutely no way to mandate a definition of spam and everybody is going to interpret that differently and it makes no sense whatsoever to argue about that, I propose that we nullify proposal 75, AND free the authors of governance proposals from writing tedious vote options because those are defined very well in the software. Luckily, our community is more than intelligent enough to interpret on their own, what the vote options do, and the documentation of the vote options is highly effective.

Finally, I believe that it makes sense to require only explaining the yes option, as doing otherwise can land a punter in hot water.

Therefore, to make governance simpler in all ways, and increase participation in governance, and remove the crazy burn two sticks of incense and say 10 hail Marys before approaching Cosmos hub governance to save thyself from Gaia’s proceduralist faction, we should do the logical thing, and require only that YED, be defined. All other vote options are defined by the underlying software and its documentation.

vote YES to nullify proposal 75, require that YES be defined, and use all other vote options as described by the cosmos-sdk

Hey – yeah, as a not-self-proclaimed proceduralist :sweat_smile: I see where you’re coming from about the confusion of assigning non-standard vote options. I think people definitely shouldn’t assign non-standard vote options.

My proposed solution here would be:

  • I think it makes the most sense to only define voting outcomes, not voting options. Ie, “if this proposal passes, xyz will occur” or “if this proposal is rejected, nothing will happen”
    • In this way, don’t even need to define most voting options
  • I still see the NWV being problematic though without the amended definition (is that why the prop was raised in the first place?)
    • It is not actually possible to enforce any definition, definitions are only frameworks for thinking about the options. Ultimately, people will do what they want. I think that’s what you were getting at with only defining yes and sticking to SDK definitions.
  • I don’t see much voting documentation in the SDK docs, is there more somewhere?

Rebuttal Against Nullification of Prop 75

Your criticism argues that Prop 75 is unnecessary because the community can interpret the vote options effectively, and the software documentation already defines them well.

However, the purpose of Prop 75 was to provide a clear, consensus-driven definition of ‘NoWithVeto’ to ensure consistent understanding and application across the Cosmos Hub community. This is particularly important given the various interpretations of ‘NoWithVeto’ identified in the proposal.

Below are my responses to your specific criticisms of Prop 75:

  1. Difficulty in defining spam: Prop 75 acknowledges that defining spam can be challenging. But its intent was also to provide a clear definition of ‘NoWithVeto’ that encompasses other aspects beyond just spam, such as disproportionately infringing on minority interests and violating the rules of engagement.

  2. Freeing authors from writing vote options: While it is true that vote options are defined in the software, Prop 75 is focused on clarifying the meaning of ‘NoWithVeto’ to prevent confusion or misuse. This clarification improves the overall governance process, ensuring that all community members have the same understanding when participating in votes.

  3. Explaining only the ‘Yes’ option: Your criticism suggests that only the ‘Yes’ option should be explained. However, Prop 75 aims to address the specific meaning of the ‘NoWithVeto’ option, which can have significant consequences, such as burning deposits and automatically failing proposals. Ensuring a clear understanding of this option is essential for effective governance.

  4. Simplifying governance: Prop 75 does not complicate governance; rather, it seeks to provide clarity in the decision-making process. By establishing a consensus-driven definition of ‘NoWithVeto’, the proposal contributes to a more transparent and efficient governance system.

Prop 75 was designed to enhance the Cosmos Hub governance system by offering a clear, consensus-driven definition of ‘NoWithVeto’. This clarification is essential to avoid misunderstandings and ensure that all community members have a consistent understanding when participating in votes.

Arguments in Favor of Sustaining Prop 75

Prop 75 has been passed by a majority of the Cosmos Hub community, demonstrating the collective recognition of the need for a clear and consistent definition of ‘NoWithVeto’. This overwhelming support for Prop 75 highlights several key aspects that contribute to the betterment of the governance process:

  1. Shared understanding: The approval of Prop 75 signifies that the community has reached a consensus on the meaning of ‘NoWithVeto’. This shared understanding allows for more effective communication and decision-making during future governance votes, fostering a more cohesive and efficient governance process.

  2. Enhanced governance clarity: Prop 75 clarified the definition, and now all participants better understand the ‘NoWithVeto’ option, reducing the potential for confusion and misinterpretation. This clarity makes it easier for community members to engage in discussions, propose changes, and make informed decisions that align with the broader interests of the Cosmos Hub ecosystem.

  3. Protection of minority interests: The definition of ‘NoWithVeto’ established by Prop 75 emphasizes the importance of protecting minority interests and upholding the rules of engagement. This focus helps to ensure a more inclusive and equitable governance process, where all voices and concerns are considered.

  4. Deterrence against spam and bad faith proposals: By clarifying the use of ‘NoWithVeto’ for spam and proposals that violate the rules of engagement, Prop 75 strengthens the deterrent against submitting irrelevant or harmful proposals. This results in a cleaner and more focused governance process that concentrates on proposals with genuine value to the Cosmos Hub community.

  5. Community-driven consensus: The passing of Prop 75 reflects the community’s active involvement in shaping the governance process. This collaborative approach showcases the strength of the Cosmos Hub ecosystem and its commitment to refining and improving its governance system for the benefit of all stakeholders.

The approval of Prop 75 by the majority of the Cosmos Hub community is a testament to the importance of having a clear and consistent definition of ‘NoWithVeto’. This consensus-driven definition will contribute to a more transparent, efficient, and inclusive governance process, benefiting the Cosmos Hub ecosystem.

1 Like

I’m not so active on the Cosmos Hub forum, but this thread got my attention.

The reason prop #75 was ratified was because the usage of the NwV option was more or less abused, without a clear expectation from the total community when this should be used. I think having a definition is a must-have, to avoid having a lot of people using the vote option without a more-or-less boxed understanding of what it means.

I would rather propose not to nullify the prop #75, but to amend if it is needed.


It opens the door to pointless proceduralism. I am saying that under the new regime, veto will just mean veto and there’s no way to abuse it.

But when to use the Veto option?

I remember the time when we had fierce discussions on when someone needed to vote with a Veto, which is why prop #75 started in the first place.

I always find it funny that in crypto the narrative is “we don’t need procedures and such, because that is so web2”.

But in the meantime it is forgotten that procedures are also there to stimulate predicatability, stability and more. Procedures are not a problem in general, but offers much needed guiderails to avoid ending up in endless discussions on what we need to vote and why.
I rather have some very good procedures on places where they matter (like setting clear definitions) over endless discussions. Since in the latter always the one who shouts the hardest gets the most done, and that is really not where we should be going to.

1 Like

Clarifying the Purpose and Logic of Prop 75

I want to address your comment regarding Prop 75, where you claim it opens the door to pointless proceduralism and that the “veto will just mean veto” without any room for abuse under the new regime.

First, it is crucial to understand that Prop 75 was designed to provide a clear and coherent definition for the ‘NoWithVeto’ option. By establishing a shared understanding of its meaning, the community aims to facilitate more effective communication, decision-making, and ultimately, a more efficient governance process.

Your comment, asserting that under the new regime, the veto will simply mean veto and there’s no way to abuse it, inadvertently supports the very purpose of Prop 75. By defining ‘NoWithVeto’ more explicitly, the community can ensure that this voting option is used responsibly and constructively rather than as a means to disrupt or manipulate the governance process.

The statement “A veto will just mean veto” highlights the very necessity of Prop 75. The ambiguity of this phrase underscores the importance of having a clear definition for the ‘NoWithVeto’ option, which is precisely what Prop 75 has resolved.

The statement “A veto will just mean veto” can be seen as circular reasoning because it essentially defines the term “veto” using the term itself, without providing any additional information or context. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is derived from a premise that relies on the conclusion itself.

In this case, the statement does not explain what “veto” actually means or under what circumstances it should be used. It simply asserts that the meaning of “veto” is self-evident or inherent in the term, which does not help establish a shared understanding within the community.

This circular reasoning highlights the importance of clearly defining the ‘NoWithVeto’ option, as provided by Prop 75. By offering a well-defined and specific meaning for the ‘NoWithVeto’ vote, Prop 75 addresses the issue of circular reasoning and helps ensure a more transparent, efficient, and responsible governance process.

Prop 75 offers a well-defined and specific meaning for the ‘NoWithVeto’ vote, clarifying that it should be used when a proposal is deemed to be spam, disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or violates the rules of engagement set by the Cosmos Hub governance. By establishing this clear definition, the community can ensure a more transparent, efficient, and responsible governance process, thereby addressing the concerns raised by the statement “A veto will just mean veto.”

1 Like

Whenever you want to use the veto option.

I like how @CML phrases it, directly above your message.

This comment of yours exactly shows why we need a definition; it will just be chaos again. We already see discussions about the use of NwV, even with a definition. It will be way worse without, because guidelines will be missing.

If this goes on chain; I will certainly vote “No” or even veto this proposal, since it only throws back the Hub, not helping it forwards.


Just want for the veto function to be used as defined in software, not restricted.

Additionally, under the current veto terms, well, guess what? You would be breaking proposal 75 to veto this.

Voting options
We propose the following definition for ‘NoWithVeto’:

“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.”

Your vote on this proposal indicates the following:

YES - You agree with the definition of ‘NoWithVeto’ established in this proposal.
NO - You disagree with the definition of ‘NoWithVeto’ established in this proposal. Please indicate why in the .
NO WITH VETO - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 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.

Here’s the tweet for those who are inclined to discuss on twitter:

I think it’s also important to think about the newcomers to Cosmos governance. Sure it can seem very rote and redundant to explain what each option means but it makes the governance process more accessible overall. There were a lot of discussions and explicit confusion from involved community members about what NWV meant, now imagine if you’re just trying to get your feet wet? I do feel that it’s important to make sure we don’t bloat the governance process with needless procedure but prop 75 seemed necessary therefore we’re not in favor of nullifying prop 75.

No one follows proposal 75

“No one follows proposal 75”

Distinguishing between opinion and fact is not “Optional.”

Your assertion that “No one follows proposal 75” seems to stem from personal opinion rather than concrete data or evidence. Such a claim without adequate support merely reflects individual bias.

To claim that no one follows Prop 75, it’s necessary to substantiate this assertion with evidence or data showing that most community members do not adhere to the proposal’s guidelines. Lacking this evidence, the statement remains nothing more than an opinion rather than a fact.

Why should your opinion be given any greater weight than that of the full Cosmos community as a whole? Acknowledging the logical failure of your statement is necessary because it’s a biased generalization.

This fallacy occurs when you draw a broad conclusion based on limited sample size, inadequate evidence, insufficient research, and/or presenting a biased viewpoint. You commit this fallacy “by asserting that no one follows Prop 75” without providing any single thread of evidence, resulting in a false conclusion.

To contribute to a constructive and informed discussion within the community, it would be more effective to differentiate between individual opinions and actual facts, ensuring that your claims are supported by sufficient evidence. In this instance, providing data or examples demonstrating how the community does or does not follow Prop 75 would be beneficial.

Where is the data to support this outlandish claim? Please present it, and prove it.

Perhaps a “No With Veto” result on the new Prop 796, would be a poetically justified outcome and can serve as a definitive and unequivocal testament to demonstrate the significance and importance of keeping Prop 75 and its original intent.

yo you’re chatgpt or care too much

How about staying on topic and just responding to the points presented in my posts? That would be a much more productive use of time. You have not provided any credible information, data, or responses. If your position is correct, then you should be able to support it with factual information.

1 Like

Well, you sound human now, so sure.

OK, so the reality is that no one follows prop 75, best illustrated by informal systems having a 2 hour long podcast about the hub and prop 791, then claiming that it was spam/unrelated.

So I just prefer that it works how the software specifies.

Does this make sense?

Your claim that the specific example cited from an “Informal Systems Podcast” discussing Prop 791 proves that “nobody adheres to Prop 75” is a logical error. It is a generalization, where the conclusion is drawn based on a single instance, rather than a representative sample or sufficient evidence.

The fact that an Informal Systems Podcast discussed Prop 791 and claimed it was spam/unrelated does not indicate that the entire community disregards or fails to apply Prop 75. An opinion expressed in a podcast does not provide a direct connection with how community members utilize the “No with Veto” option when voting.

To make a convincing case, you need to present actual aggregated data showing that the majority of the community consistently does not follow Prop 75. Relying on a single example does not prove a trend or represent the broader behavior of the community.

Moreover, even if your claim is true, a single instance, or even a small minority, of Prop 75 not being followed does not justify nullifying the proposal. Instead, it might suggest a need for better communication or clarification of Prop 75’s guidelines within the community.

Prop 75 has broader applications and implications than just preventing spam. Your attempt to use a highly emotive argument to sway community opinion against an unsubstantiated claim is not supported by hard evidence.

Your example does not provide sufficient support for nullifying Prop 75 based on the assumption that no one follows it. Your argument is based on a logical error and does not effectively refute the importance and purpose of Prop 75.

Furthermore, you have not addressed any of the other relevant points raised in previous responses. Relying solely on emotionally driven arguments without a basis in reality is not convincing.

It is your obligation to substantiate your claims with due diligence, which includes supporting your arguments with aggregate data that demonstrate its accuracy and factual basis. So far, you have not met even the most basic minimum standards.

I challenge the greater Cosmos community to carefully examine the potential motives behind the desire to nullify Prop 75. Nullifying Prop 75 does not align with the best interests of the broader community.

However, Nullifying Prop 75 could prove very advantageous for a select few with self-serving interests / objectives to benefit from weaker governance practices and to advance their agendas. This campaign to nullify Prop 75 is about weakening community governance so that self-serving interested parties can exert greater control. Don’t fall for this Trojan Horse Smoke Screen tactic.

Prop 75 bolsters robust governance practices by reinforcing the decentralized control of the Cosmos Hub, which ultimately serves the entire community’s best interests.


Really sir, I don’t get your objection

the code always works how it is built and vote options should reflect that. I don’t see this having a meaningful outcome on any gov decision, because right now, validators already use the veto as it is programmed, not as 75 dictates.

You’re asking for data on fleshy human matters, and this isn’t possible. Can you provide data in support of 75?



As the presumed author of Prop #796, the responsibility lies with you to provide evidence for why Prop 75 should be nullified, not with those who support its continuation.

One compelling piece of evidence in favor of Prop 75 is the fact that the community passed it. The proposition’s language clearly conveys its purpose and rationale, highlighting the community’s intent behind its adoption.

If there are no significant differences between nullifying Prop 75 and adhering to “the code definition of veto” then please clarify your understanding of “A veto will just mean veto,” as I have previously addressed the circular logic and ambiguity surrounding this statement.

If there are indeed no substantial differences, then Prop 75’s existence should have no impact on the status quo, and nullifying it is unnecessary.

In the event that Prop 75 is nullified, what specific definition would replace the current interpretation of the veto? This information is essential for a transparent and informed discussion within the community.

1 Like