Prop #87: Thoughts

Hello Cosmonauts!

I want to touch on the importance of Prop #87, as i feel like the community’s best interest is not being championed enough through voting, since Validators hold much bigger sway than delegators, and also through a community representor, but I digress…

My issue with this proposal as the negative mindset I have dictates, is that there really was no need for this increase to happen. I know anyone is free to put a prop onchain, however the justification is not met for this one.

IF there is a problem with spam proposals, what are the data to justify this? Again, the reason of increase to my knowledge is to prevent spam proposals at the bottom-line. And herein lies the issue.

What defines a spam proposal? Is it subjective or objective?
Who defines which proposal is a spam? Is it again based on metrics of subjectivity or objectivity?
How many spam proposals where submitted, in order to justify the increase?

The burden of proof, once again, lies to the proposer and not the challenger. I am simply a blackhat thinker that likes to err on the negative and safe side first.

The argument that “if you want you will gather the funds” is neither comforting nor valid. I for one will not go around like a beggar and ask for atoms, it is a matter of pride. Id prefer to unstake my atoms and do it myself. And I am NOT special. A lot of people from the community could potentially share this sentiment as well.

I do not want to focus on the amount, as it diverts from the actual problem which is the need for this proposals existence first, and part of the content after, although I find the amount VERY unfair due to price action potential and because it makes the prop creation process even more centralized, whereas we should be striving for more decentralization. No individuals should have this much control, code is law and community should be there to safeguard and participate in said law.

I implore the community to Vote on their best interest and think very well before submitting a vote.
I implore the community to reach to their validators and ask them to justify this voting that in a way, excludes them from the process.

Sequentially, one before submitting a prop as such, should again have Damocle’s sword on top of their head.

Your friendly neighborhood helicopter pilot :helicopter:


Did you read this thread? Because it seems to contain a lot already :slight_smile:

Also the No with Veto governance option needs to be fixed. There are a number of what I consider spam proposals going up and not being vetoed and the you have prop 82, that won a majority vote and yet was NWV, seemingly punishing a successful proposal. NWV is being used inappropriately and exacerbates the high Prop deposit problem.

Leonoor, it does not sadly. It answers nothing but increase of ATOMs === No Spam, without proiding justification or factual data to support such claim(s)
I will direct you here: Best Practices for Drafting a Proposal | Cosmos Hub
And i quote:


  1. Problem/Value - generally the problem or value that’s motivating the parameter change(s)
  2. Solution - generally how changing the parameter(s) will address the problem or improve the network
  • the beneficiaries of the change(s) (ie. who will these changes impact and how?)
    * voters should understand the importance of the change(s) in a simple way
  1. Risks & Benefits - clearly describe how making this/these change(s) may expose stakeholders to new benefits and/or risks
  2. Supplementary materials - optional materials eg. models, graphs, tables, research, signed petition, etc

If you want to look to an alternative i have a proposal ready. Publishing soon.

Very curious for the example.

I do agree that there needs to be a template-like format how a proposal needs to be shaped to make the governance effective. Having a clear text and explanation why a proposal matters will also help why someone wants to achieve something by going through governance.

It aint successful if it didnt pass… Just saying

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.