[PROPOSAL ##][DRAFT] Spam Prevention Fairness Amendment










Concerns were raised for spam proposals in the Hub. This proposal suggests parameters change but in a more fair way towards the community and on the same time maintaining a firm anti-spam policy while also honouring previous proposals regarding the amount topic(#6, #47, #87)
Proposal #87 was raised to tackle a Spam issue; however, it came without data to support that claim. It is also more logical to increase the initial deposit as ~1 Atom proposal deposit is susceptible to spam itself due to the amount being miniscule.


  • Change the proposer account deposit to 10 ATOMs
  • Change of the initial minimum deposit(min_deposit) param in the governance module before the deposit end time to a total of 50 ATOMs
  • The 10 ATOMs for the proposal account deposit cannot be contributed to, and submitted by multiple different accounts, but only via a single wallet, and that is the proposer account.


The concerns of SPAM proposals in ATOM are nothing new. Initially prop #6 was introduced and passed to further improve the CosmosHub state machine headless spam prevention via deposit, by introducing the burn on VETO votes alone. This further solidifies the use and meaning of ‘NwV’, as it acts as a spam filter itself without disincentivizing the community to participate in Governance via fear of burning if the proposal simply is voted ‘No’
Proposal #47 was raised, and passed to decrease the amount from 512 ATOMs to 64, in an attempt to be more inclusive to the community.

In this approach, by raising the proposer amount we tackle the spam issue for one, and for another we propose a totality of 50 atoms as min_deposit which is a very inclusive and fair amount to any concerned cosmonaut.

Initially prop #87 was suggesting 400 ATOMs of a deposit to counter spam, which is an x6 from the initial number. Having this in mind, this proposal suggests a x10 in the amount, but of the proposer initial and not in totality. This way it is tackling both issues of Spam on hub and the community’s concerns about not being able to participate in governance.


The Community should always be welcome to suggest a proposal, and should always have a saying in governance. The amount introduced previously is unjust in both ways: Unjust in terms of fairness, and unjust in terms of justification. Cosmos is all about the community, and voicing an opinion is of great importance to any concerned Cosmonaut.

Having said that, we also want to minimize spam proposals while encouraging the bright minds of our community to also contribute in the Hub and the future of Cosmos. A proposal has to contain factual data to solve the problem that is presenting, and previous props for the majority did that but we need to amend recent changes to something more effective that tackles both issues: Governance participation in voicing an opinion and Spam mitigation in either times of contention or any time at all, really.

Additionally moving forward a proposal process is being formed as a formal format for which future proposals can adhere to. It will be based on a set of rules that the proposers should adhere to in order for a proposal to be deemed a) Valid b) Feasible and c) Helpful.


Effective immediately upon passing this prop suggests that the following take place:
- Proposers deposit is increased to 10 ATOMs.
- Proposal Total amount is reduced to 50 ATOMs.
- The Proposer has to fund the 10 ATOMs from a singular wallet with a singular transaction.


  • YES: You approve this proposal.
  • NO: You disapprove of the proposal in its current form, however if changes happen and majority approves, you will go with it.
  • NO (VETO): A very strong NO that you directly oppose to this proposition under the SPAM or causing negative externality to the Community reasoning.
  • ABSTAIN: You don’t really care about all this.

#hub-proposals #hub-proposals:parameter-change

I found this proposal draft for how it is written more political, than an action in the best interest of the network.

Because this proposal firmly ignore the decision of the community, in fact we just had a proposal to change the deposit amount.

Proposal 87# reached a wide majority with at the time of writing 93% YES and 51% Turnout. Those are strong numbers that signal already the will of the community in term of minimum deposit for governance.

Having a new proposal for changing a minimum deposit after we just had one with strong community consensus, could be classified as spam.

Spam because it is meant to overwrite a proposal that is likely going to pass with a strong community consensus and participation in a metter of days from approval.

A new proposal for a minimum deposit would be legitimate in the case Prop 87# will be rejected. But so far this is not the case.

Proposal 47 was raised the 2021-05-06 the price of Atom during that period was 24$, this means that the community considered fair having a minimum deposit amount in dollar value of 1500$ (64x24)

Currently the value of 64 Atom is 614$, much less of what the community considered fair back at Prop47. So this is an example that actually add another reason to increase the minimum deposit as stated in Prop87, and this is part of the reason the majority of the community is voting YES.

This quote is where the proposal gets more political creating a narrative that is far from being true. Because Proposal 87 is actually already the community expressing that agree on raising the minimum deposit.

It is actually unfair that the will of few people wanna ignore the governance decision of the community, and they are trying to impose their will through a political narrative.

Cosmos is all about community voicing an opinion, sure, but also respecting the decision of the community taken through governance.

If anyone that doesn’t agree with the result of a proposal would launch right after a counter proposal, this would represent a spam, because openly ignore the community decision and try to impose the will of few or a group of community members that disagree over the majority.

This disagreement would have a say in the case of course of a rejection of contested proposal, but if the proposal will pass, the members of the community should respect the decision.

The community should always participate in governance, but if we start to not respect the results of governance, the governance process will lose any meaning.


This prop is poorly timed. It seems to fly in the face of a vote which is currently passing with 93% voting yes. I am going to assume it is well intentioned but I would recommend seeing the impact from 97 before putting this on chain as it might prove to be unintentionally diversive just as we are reaching reasonable unity.

seems to beg the question: why did so many people vote to raise the minimum deposit for proposals during a bear market, making it considerably more difficult to put up proposals when trend reverses? did validators vote without considering the future consequences of 4x’ing the proposal cost or is it centralization/bandwagon voting?

Spam is not what YOU define, Robb. There is actual definition of this word and you can go look it up, otherwise i can spin whatever adjective to my narrative. YOU are making this political instead of discussing the context of the proposal here.

Who is to say a proposal cannot arise to nullify a previous prop that someone identified a problem with? Isnt prop #75 raised to nullify #6 in a way with the “NwV” shame campaign? ← This is not something to be discussed here and now. This is to prove that the politics do not come from me, im trying to amend this actually.

Discuss the prop Context, please. Timing is not an issue, i decided not to push on chain, i will explain below as to why

After careful consideration it was decided not to be pushed on chain. Sadly the community voted yes, in absence of better judgment if i may add, to a proposal they dont fully understand.

Prop 87 was unjust and unjustified. No Data was presented to show the “Spam” issue for one and for another, you need only look into Cosmos Hub documentation of Proposal Best Practices to see that as well.

  • Does it make sense? - No prop 87 does not as its presenting a non issue, or atleast a non factual data supported issue
  • Are there critical flaws? - Yes because the increase of ATOMs is hindering the community’s ability to propose ideas on chain
  • Does it needs to be reconsidered? - Yes for the above stated factual reasons

Additionally, It was estimate that we were too limited with our possibilities within the timeframe presented, to do justice the right way of proposing an alternate fair and more sound of a “counter” proposal that serves both: Justice to community and the “Spam” issue.

Because of that, and because everything seems it revolves around politics, and Cosmos is no exception to that, this prop would not get the justice it deserves, because i really do stand behind this approach 100%. You need only look at the initial reply of totally missing the context and instead creating a strawman theory of “political agenda” to divert from the actual discussion which should be the content of the proposal firstly.

Finally i want to say this:
I am very disappointed because everyone says “oh sure we can help anyone in the community with a proposal” however, those are empty words. I challenge you to show me a proposal drafted by a community nobody - like me- that is published ONCHAIN that had an impact on the hub. You will find none. This is the first, and rest assured not the last, attempt from a literal NOBODY cosmonaut that loves this Hub and has a neutral stance to it, to propose a very good idea on chain.

The community is only acting here via voice,and this gives the illusion of “saying” BUT, the community is only showing control over predetermined outcome proposals and this is a very strong case in point. Its like having a body picking from a basket of 10 proposals and the community is choosing from that basket. In the meantime, we are saying that anyone can make a basket of proposals lets say for the general community to vote upon, but this is not the case. If the hub is not inclusive to such, just state it guys and get it over with. But dont say “Anyone can make an impact” or other wooden empty words in chats and socials. Because your actions do not reflect the talk in tg/twitter etc.

Here we are, instead of discussing the context of what I propose, discussing politics and presenting childish arguments while neglecting the proposals context and concept.

Lastly, the urgency was because - CASE IN POINT - I dont have liquid 250 atoms. Most of my ATOMs are STAKED to ensure the Hubs security. I was going to borrow from my small liquid stack the full 64 ATOMs amount and that i can budge. I could not budge 250 as prop 87 would apply on chain effective immediately after voting period has passed.

You can say this is for Spam, Oni, but this is only to hinder the community from expressing an opinion in a way that matters(ON CHAIN) while preserving the right to shape the future of the hub to a selected few.

Oh yeah, that sounds very fair guys. Lets go with that.

1 Like

Proposal 87 is officially passed with:

83.8% YES - 20903 individuals - 90 Validators

6.22% NO - 781 individuals - 15 Validators

0,01% No with Veto

9.92% Abstain

The community already made a decision, if you are a community members that would actually care to Cosmos, you would respect a decision of the decentralized governance.

But unfortunately your group ‘‘Cosmos Maximalist’’ doesn’t care to the community or either to Cosmos and his current shape. Your reply is the proof once again that your group cares only to what your group want for Cosmos.

You group keep trying as can be seen in the speech above to pretend to represent the whole community or the small stakeholders, but indeed your group represents a minority that is not open to accept any governance decisions that is not in line with their vision.

This is the definition of extremism, it’s a tendency to support a political position without accepting any compromise and rejecting the decisions of the majority, and unfortunately also fight any decisions. As we can see with this draft proposal that wanna fight a decision where the YES were above 2/3 of the voters.

The irony is that you are pushing for an higher form of centralization in the name of decentralization, with few people or a group of people that pretend to represent the whole Cosmos community and fight any decision that don’t follow their own vision.

This is something that I personally can’t support and if this proposal will go on-chain, my vote will be NWV.

Because this draft deliberately ignore the decision of the decentralized community that with 83%YES (93% without Abstain), a super majority, already expressed the thought on-chain by agreeing to increase the deposit amount.

I hope that your group will be more open to accept and have a constructive discussion with the rest of the community.

Using Cosmos governance first with 3 Proposals extremely political that were strongly rejected and now with a proposal that wanna oppose to super majority, it is not showing the will of your group to accept any decision that doesn’t follow your vision.

The Cosmos community, like any other Crypto community is influenced by the hate that the bear market brings with it.

But this fight environment that your group is trying to create, also with that doc recently ‘‘Cosmos Hub is a battlefield’’ will not help Cosmos and doesn’t represent the community a large.

Please let’s be more open to mutual understanding, especially if the community express their will on-chain with super majority, a decentralized community is shaped by decentralized decision, if we start to not respect those decisions, this is exactly how the will of few people influence the majority creating centralization.

Here we go.

You do not know for a fact with whom i am working you only assume, which is a moot point to bring to the table.

You are making it political once again but such is your modus operandi.

You cannot say that the community would not embrace this option presented here because it wasnt concidered or presented in 87. This is entirely different solution for the same problem. So tell me, Robb, how can the community decide between the two solutions if one is not presented to the community via on chain voting? This renders your argument about the community weak, and you can mascarade this however you want but the fact is that this option was never on the table. So the community did not voice an opinion upon. There are two solutions to the same problem and only one is presented to stakeholders, how is this a fair analogy of what the community wants? Younare using the “community” as a shield of deflection.

And once again you divert from the context of this draft to strawman it with crazy consipiracy theories about a “cosmos maximalist” club. You are wat out of reality and have no clue to who you are speaking nor does it matter, so i would urge you to put aside your ptsd and persobal vendetas and address the points presented objectivey, if you can.

Don’t worry I don’t wanna talk further of your group, because anyone that has been in the governance chat or followed governance proposals is aware of this.

But to answer very simply why your current draft is to he considered spam (because it is not a necessary proposal) and it is ignoring the community decision for super majority:

The community voted to raise the deposit amount from 64 Atom to 250 Atom.

This means, that there was already low amount of Atom required to submit a proposal, and yet the community with super majority decided to raise it.

Your proposal wanna mainly invert this decision and bring back a lower amount.

But Proposal #87 already showed the on-chain feedback of the community on this argument.

So your draft proposal it is meant to ignore a decision of governance that happened just yesterday, because your group or yourself don’t agree with the decision.

But again it’s not few people that should shape the decision of the decentralized governance, we have an on-chain voting system and the community already expressed their will on the matter.

For sure the deposit amount can be reviewed in the future, following market price movements, but for sure not the day after the proposal was just approved.

You are of course free to ignore my feedback, after all this seems to be the narrative with your group, but I will vote NWV for all the reasons I have explained in this thread.

I have shared my objective feedback, I hope you will consider it.

Your suggestion that i act as a proxy for another group is insulting to my individuality and has nothing to do with the context of my draft.

I cannot further discuss with you as well. Because you either dont understand that the community voted to increase the min_deposit purely from absence of an alternative, OR you choose to ignore this FACT altogether, thus rendering the continuation of this discussion with you pointless.

I would love to hear feedback for this as an alternative from others as well.

It is extremely unsetling the fact that we cannot voice an opinion to rectify a proposal that was not presented with alternative solutions. Who are you to judge that and decide? Stop using the community as a shield. The community was not presented with an alternative. Its very simple to understand, really

The alternative was to vote NO to Proposal #87 and keep the 64 Atom amount. But the community voted to increase to 250 Atom with super majority.

Each proposal has YES and No options, there is always an alternative.

So you have already a feedback that the community prefer to have 250 Atom as deposit amount and not 64 Atom or lower.

can you really say that the community voted for prop87? seems more accurate to say validators cast community votes that way.

1 Like

This is a question that can be verified on-chain looking at individuals voters.

Proposal #87 had the participation of 22261 individual voters which is a fair representation of the Cosmos community.

i dont doubt that it can be assessed, i dont see how you concluded that 22261 individual voters is a fair representation of the cosmos community

1 Like

I think it is the best representation we can have out of the people interested for it. I mean, literally everyone can vote. So if “just” 22k people take the effort, then that is the fair representation of the community, since they seem to care enough to invest the effort in voting. The rest seemingly does not care enough.

For now I would like to make sure the discussion here is solely on the content; and not on persons and related groups. In the past messages I saw some mutual frustration (with an origin in the past?). I guess that at this point in time we have to respect prop #87 regarding the outcome, but monitoring is needed. If we need to lower again, because price is rising or whether practically no proposals are coming through anymore then we need to adjust. I do agree that such decisions in general need data to back things up.

Leonoor thank you for the feedback.

So if “just” 22k people take the effort, then that is the fair representation of the community, since they seem to care enough to invest the effort in voting. The rest seemingly does not care enough.

My reasoning is that even if ALL the cosmonauts voted yes, they were only presented a solution different to the problem than what i propose. So it is not fair to say that they “chose” 250 atoms objectively while being unaware of a different solution to the same “problem”. The “No” vote is also a disingenuous point, because when you present a sense of urgency + a negative word accompanying
it, with no other solution at hand, it is logical that people will vote “yes” for absence of a better alternative.

Spam could be a problem, but its a problem not presented yet. Kevin’s proposal serves HIS personal definition of Spam, and it is not justified by data. Ergo it renders the prop unfair even if you view it from multiple angles.

The image painted here, is that a small cartel is responsible to make suggestions for the future of the Hub while Cosmonauts vote on predetermined proposals, which gives the illusion of choice, but lets not kid here.


I very much understand your concern.

I miss the option to do some kind of “lightweight” form of governance at this time. Gaging the community thoughts through governance is quite a drastic measure, some kind of well-received poll would be wonderful in this perspective to check which route we should take. Do we have something in our toolbox which might serve that purpose?

I have something in mind for some time now, ill draft and share :slight_smile:

1 Like

I disagree with the notion that the Community should always be welcome to suggest a proposal on chain. I think only select few, high quality proposals should reach the public referendum stage and those will definitely not have a problem getting 250 or more ATOM deposit. I consider proposals #78, #80 and #86 spam proposals and proposals #89 and #90 not worthy of direct public referendum