[PROPOSAL] [DRAFT] Mandate the use of this forum for governance discussions

If we have to pute mandates on governance, than I also think that votes choices of all wallets and validators should be private and invisible to the public so no one is being shamed on social media for thier votes.

1 Like

As a validator I think that my votes should be public so delegators can choose well based on my vote history.

At notional, we will never give in to claims of “conflict of interest” because the override function is really one of the cosmos SDK most elegant.

Some don’t understand this, but kitteh does.

Btw if you don’t like a kitteh vote, tell her. Just don’t cite blatantly false sources when you do that

And please, please don’t try to stop her from voting. Our delegators have chosen us to vote for them and that’s our job.

1 Like

Was thinking about putting up a proposal to reducing the vote duration to 1 week AND asking that proposals go up on the forum for a week. However, I’d support this proposal as a place to start, so don’t block on me.

I’d say there is one exception here, which would be an emergency upgrade in the event of a significant bug. In this case a post should go up on the forum at the same time as the proposal is made.


@Thyborg - I think it’s better to accumulate small proposals that collectively form a larger governance ‘rules of engagement’ (as mentioned in Prop 75) or constitution and this is a great start. The more dense and complicated a proposal gets, the more likely we’ll get bogged down in endless discussions over the details.

This one is clear and straight to the point: 3 days’ discussion on the forum is required. It’s ‘unenforceable’ just like all signaling proposals, but the enforcement is supposed to come from the people signaling their agreement and personally committing to upholding it and introducing consequences for those who don’t (via a burned deposit).

The most I’d ask be added is an encouragement to use the forum tags, since they link to a telegram bot that will alert folks when a proposal hits ‘last-call’ and is nearly ready to go on-chain.

I agree with @hxrts though - would prefer at least a week of discussion. 3 days is very short, especially noting personally that this post went up on a Saturday in my timezone and so the three days was mostly weekend!


Hey @lexa I just want to let you know I was thinking exactly the same thing about the discussion time.

How about I put in my calendar, something for this governance proposal for Wednesday of the coming week?

Maybe I try to hop into the Cosmos hub fireside chat on Wednesday just sort of explain the intent of this and I think it’s exactly that I totally agree that it should be smaller pieces we could even arrange them into something that can be read as a package.

Thanks to @hxrts for advice on disconnected commentary in these posts. I’ve removed some content here, to ensure that it stays on topic.

To @thyborg I wish to once again highlight that proposal 76 does not pose a conflict of interest for validators. Our delegators can always override if they disagree with our votes, and our delegators have delegated their votepower to us.


I agree with the general motive of this proposal. I do like to see community discussion prior to a proposal. I do worry about requesting a “no with veto” vote for proposals the are brought forward without the 3 day discussion. Can anyone think of props that may be more urgent and cannot wait for 3 days?

1 Like


Anything dealing with emergency chain upkeep / software should be exempt, because those should be put through quickly.

1 Like

I would suggest maybe adding something about that to the proposal.

1 Like

Fireside chat would be great! And agree with @MattAlexander about explicitly calling out the possibility of urgent upkeep. Worth putting it in writing even though it’s common sense.

1 Like

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

Putting this one up now.

Some people had contacted me and said that it wasn’t enforceable bit after thinking about it I realized that the enforcement is actually in the hands of the community exactly where it should be.

1 Like

hey sam, the original text had something in it for emergencies, but I have made it clearer in the new text.


figuring to go live in the next couple of hours. I vacillated on this one, but it is really self-enforcing.

1 Like

:tada: gonna flip the tag on this to last-call

@jacobgadikian what do you think of this?

This proposal amends proposal 75, and expands the applicable scope of NoWithVeto to include proposals that have not been discussed on forum.cosmos.network.

Could this be rephrased as something like “This proposal will become one of the Hub’s Rules of Engagement, mentioned in the scope of NoWithVeto in Proposal 75”?

Bc the text of 75 includes:

“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.”

Note: In this definition we use the term “rules of engagement” to refer to practices adopted by the Cosmos Hub community through governance. These may include decision-making processes and social protocols that have passed governance and thus been accepted as rules.

And I think it would be great to explicitly identify proposals that are going to become ‘rules’ if they pass, rather than continuously amending the precise definition of NWV.


This is better, thank you!


let’s do it! thanks for pushing this forward Jacob!


Totally in favour of this one.
The 3 day timing works quite well (not always) on Osmosis, and would be nice to have it for Cosmos as well. I see the forum is getting more and more used (the ATOM2.0 is a nice catalyst), so this might be the right timing.

A description for NoWithVeto is also good, since it will prevent abuse of it. We have seen attempts to alter the outcome with promised airdrops, which is not the best route imho. So an agreement on how we want to use NoWithVeto (which should not be taken too lightly) is long overdue.


I really do not understand how things like:

  • mandate use of…

  • lower the voting deadline to…

  • slash validators for NOT doing…

  • create a separate entity to govern another entity…

… can in any way improve governance. I am sorry, but it’s simple history + exp + logic + psychology. There are NO examples in real life politics where enforcement or a similar tactic would help people want to participate in governance and / or feel / be part of it.

The improvement of decentralized governance, in comparison to the regularone, IMO, is the reward. The understanding that (apart from a consensus of the majority that have chosen to do something freely - as opposed to democracy, where it’s consensus of majority by design and/or illusion of choice) this introduces rewards to those who take part in it. I’m not talking tokens. I’m saying that people in real life don’t vote, cause they don’t care. The more corrupt the country is, the less people vote, cause voting in local elections, etc, will not change anything. The logic is why shoudl i do it, if i am not rearded? - and rightly so.

Where is the logic of enforcing the same practices. Trying to outrun time, etc to improve those processes if we know these things do not?

Sorry for the rant, but, this just seems common sense. The worst mistake of any trader, is to do trades, just because they have to. I’m trying to ask are there other ways of improving a procces, other than enforcing?


1 Like

There’s a pretty easy enforcement mechanism, which is that voters automatically veto the proposal if the proposal was not given sufficient time for feedback on the forum.