Multiple addresses alrsady can deposit.
Aside from echoing your thoughts completely, this direct quote is an unfortunate reality within Cosmos Hub governance.
As a next step solution, what would you say RE prioritizing getting rid of âNWVâ prior to tackling this deposit amount issue? It could provide a more balanced approach to the entire community when it comes to fair voting.
Hoping this is the case, because if soâŚ
Honestly, I donât really know if getting rid of NWV is a solution, because I havenât given it enough thought.
All I know is that thereâs PLENTY of validators that disregard the meaning of NWV. Iâd love to see validators punished for acting in bad faith on governance, thatâs for sure.
âŚRather than getting NwV because I donât know which validator prefers what kind of language or length of a proposal text.
Heck, the AADAO prop even showed us that validators (as well as delegators) donât even read, let alone open hyperlinks in a proposal text.
So again, talking about raising deposit amounts isnât gonna solve a relevant problem. Could argue that it distracts evenâŚ
1 Like
Regarding the concerns regarding raising the barrier to the participation of governance, itâs important to consider the following:
- The suggested increase, when denominated in $, doesnât increase the deposit amount that was approved by governance with Proposal #87
- While it currently requires 250 $ATOM for a proposal to enter voting period, only 25 $ATOM are required to enter the deposit period, during which anyone could contribute to the deposit and push the proposal on-chain. Making the true cost to participate in governance much lower than what people are assuming it to be.
- Afaik I havenât seen any community members who went through the process of pushing a proposal to the deposit period, fail to get support in the forum from others to push it on-chain.
I do agree, however, with the idea of a dollar-denominated deposit amount for governance participation in the future. Until then, the idea of adjusting the deposit amount to account for $ATOMâs price action since the last update is worth pursuing. Especially when these proposals arenât showing any signs of slowing down.
Thats great. All that is left is for users to find out about it. Create a normal gov UI and increase voting itme. Then as last step, start doing governance from down (by collecting user feedback and ideas) up (bring it to daos that will create props to go onchain).
We are nearly there. Then follow the price =)
TBH, it doesnt matter. The price can be adjusted at any second. Its more about what comes out of it and how to make it better. Thats the important thing
This proposal must receive a firm âNWVâ vote in light of infringing upon minority interest.
If that does not please, nor reflect, this direct part of the broader community, it is strongly encouraged to prioritize creating a proposal to reduce the voting mechanics to a Yes/No, completely omitting the âNWVâ feature.
Not only would this signal a key Validator, such as Citadel, prioritizing aid to Hub governance from a bottom up approach, this would significantly help even out the current political gamification amongst validators/delegators alike, creating a more fair and simplified voting field.
Thank you.
1 Like
On behalf of the PRO Delegatorsâ validator, we encourage Citadel.One to proceed with their proposal. Additionally, we invite them to participate in the broader governance reform we intend to launch early next year.
This reform will aim to establish a governance framework with a clear set of rules for accessing on-chain governance in a transparent and compliant manner.
While spam-deterring sanctions will be part of these discussions, we believe that access to on-chain votes should be based on more than just âfree will.â Some participants have used on-chain governance as a âtemperature checkâ mechanism, and we believe this practice is inappropriate. We will initiate public discussions specifically aimed at determining where the line should be drawn to ensure a more responsible and effective governance process.
1 Like
Isnât any signaling proposal a temperature check?
This is outside the scope of this topic, letâs agree to have that debate on the forthcoming community discussion early next year 
We acknowledge the importance of improving governance on the Cosmos Hub, and we agree that comprehensive reforms are necessary to address the broader needs of the community. However, in the short term, we support increasing the deposit requirement to 500 ATOM. This increase can help filter out low-effort proposals and encourage more serious, well-thought-out initiatives to reach the voting stage.
While we view this as a temporary solution, we remain committed to discussing long-term reforms to further enhance the governance process.
â GATA HUB
2 Likes
Thanks for the support @Govmos @GATA_HUB.
Just a quick update regarding proceeding on-chain with the proposal:
After talking to the sdk team, itâs best to wait for v21 update. It turns out sdk v0.50 introduced some gov params that were never set to any particular value on the Hub, meaning that a param change prop will probably fail.
4 Likes
Apologies, Citadel.
Not to continue straying, but I would hope it is true, despite disagreements, that we are here collectively to support and improve ATOM value accrual and its long term success.
With that being said, Iâm baffled to see a TOP 20 validator, Provalidator @Govmos, who views:
to be inappropriate, which is fully agreed upon, chooses to willingly gloss over the clear and established voting mechanics set out by Cosmos Hub Governance.
Instead, encourages well-intentioned proposals, such as this, to pass forward on-chain before prioritizing omitting the conveniently, and continuously, ignored âNWVâ feature:
One would hope to see esteemed and established validators, such as yourselves, utilizing funds even more effectively, to address the broader needs of the community, by prioritizing correcting the voting mechanics, which seem disregarded anyways, as @StunZeed mentions, before any effort to raise deposit amounts, which indeed is a:
while, as @serejandmyself correctly states:
To add to this, since Hypha found this issue testing the prop on the provider network â the dev team will be adding the default sdk value for proposal cancel ratio (0.5) and leaving proposal cancel dest empty.
These gov params are:
proposal cancel ratioâ The cancel ratio which will not be returned back to the depositors when a proposal is cancelled. (Lexaâs note - we havenât discussed cancelling proposals on the Hub before, but I believe this is about the proposer having the power to withdraw the prop)proposal cancel destâ The address which will receive (proposal_cancel_ratio * deposit) proposal deposits. If empty, the (proposal_cancel_ratio * deposit) proposal deposits will be burned.
1 Like
Question: Are you against those with substantial capital gatekeeping smaller users from submitting proposals by raising the deposit amount, especially during a bull market?
Answer: Vote against Prop980.
RE the valid concern for discouraging SPAM proposals, there are other ways that do not solely cater, and advance, whale preference.
This is unfortunately incorrect. Itâs worth reminding everyone that submitting a proposal only requires a minimal initial deposit. Once submitted, others can contribute to this deposit until the adjusted minDeposit parameter is met. At that point, the proposal becomes active on the blockchain for community voting. In essence, you simply need to rally enough support to collectively reach the 500 ATOM threshold to make your proposal live. Youâre not required to fund the entire amount yourselfâcollaboration with other stakeholders, whether large or small, is entirely possible. Thereâs no gatekeeping in this process.
1 Like
Post-voting update:
With the passing of the proposal, the Min Deposit amount has now increased to 500 $ATOM. As a direct consequence, the Minimum Initial Deposit is now 50 instead of 25 $ATOM.
Note:
Due to an SDK code validation requirement that requires expeditedMinDeposit to be greater than minDeposit, the expeditedMinDeposit has been adjusted to 501 $ATOM to ensure successful parameter implementation.
While a more substantial difference between standard and expedited deposits may be warranted, this consideration fell outside the scope of the current proposal and therefore, if the community wishes to, should be addressed separately.