Proposal Feedback on the Forum

The Notional team ( @vuong177, @LitBit, @jacobgadikian) has recently posted their vesting account information on the Cosmos Hub forum. This shows a commitment to public accountability and makes it easy for cosmonauts to follow up about the proposal.

Proposals are not finished after they pass. Feedback and execution are more important than voting yes or no because it helps us learn from the past.

So, might we want to create a new forum category for “Proposal Follow-ups”? This can act as a dedicated space for:

  • proposal retros
  • proposal feedback and reporting
  • communication about past proposals

Some benefits of this would be:

  • make it easier to find proposal feedback
  • reduce time needed to learn about Cosmos Hub governance decisions
  • increase public accountability for accepted proposals
  • provide clear lines of communications between stakeholders and teams that had proposals accepted

Would love to know what others (cc: @lexa) think about this idea! It’s worth noting that we already have suggested naming conventions and tags on the forum that can be used for a similar purpose.


hey :slight_smile:

I’m super-glad that you noticed our technique, which has two goals:

  • make the process reproducible for other teams
  • Give the community insight into the exact composition of the multi-sig account

We are also adding support for vesting accounts to our multi-signature transaction tool, located at

Thanks for highlighting this, and if you have any questions or if future proposers want any help with the process, please let us know.


YES ! this is exactly what we need! An easy to find, in one place overview of all proposals, communication/feedback about progress of the passed proposals and accountability of spent community funds. This will bring a good amount of transparency and trust in Cosmos. Imo It is a basic need in professionally running the Cosmos hub. I have noticed in earlier posts on this forum and other social media that the request from the community for this is clear. thank you for this proposal.


I think it depends on how independent the follow-up content is! For essays that spawn from a proposal, such as the ones I wrote after Proposal #63, they are long enough that the should be stand-alone content. I put them in Governance Meta because the proposal itself was focused on the process of governance:

Other, shorter updates (like the information for the vesting accounts in Proposal #104) feel like they would be at home as a reply under the original proposal post.

My concern in creating a new category is just that people already have trouble placing proposals under the ‘right’ category (air quotes because hey - I don’t own the forum so my opinions on what’s right are valid but not necessarily objective). People also don’t really use the naming conventions :') so indexing and finding content is getting harder as the forum grows.

We would need strong norms or mod support in linking together posts so that someone finding the original proposal could easily access the follow up and feedback, and vice versa.

I’ve been extremely hesitant to edit posts as a moderator - I don’t think it’s appropriate to edit anything other than the title to comply with the naming conventions. But ideally, the top-level post would contain links to related content. Discourse does this automatically to a certain extent (pages contain links to other pages where the original page has been mentioned) but I haven’t fully traced the logic for how and when this happens.


@lexa I think you have a good point there. A forum is not a good place for reporting on progress and accountablility of passed props. This forum is for discussing proposals in the making before a prop goes to voting and other discussions. The feedback and info on passed props will be burried under new discussions etc and not easily accessable. I think we need a seperate place where passed proposals are listed and the organisations that are funded and carry them out report on the progress and give account for the spendings.

I therefore propose to create a new sub: something like: “” or something like that.
There all passed props will be listed seperately and the feedback/accountability can be given by the funded organisations. In this way all progress on passed props info can be accessed easily by anyone now and in future and is available for future evaluation use and will not be mixed with other info and ideas like on this forum. This will also make this forum more focussed.

pls give your ideas/feedback on creating a subdomain (somethng like: prop-reports.cosmos.nerwork) for progress reports/feedback/accountability of funds for passed props.

1 Like

Thanks for this – it’s insightful.

After thinking through it, it does seem that the creation of a new category (in and of itself) wouldn’t do much to solve the archival problem and is kind of a low-leverage peripheral solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

Rather, it seems we should be aiming toward

It does seem like some kind of agreed upon protocol for moderators or archivists to follow in merging or splitting topics could be useful here, though I know that people do have concerns about their content being “meddled with”.

@Pookybear I have had a similar idea in the past, but while useful, this approach also has short-comings. Namely, it requires consistent maintenance and upkeep and raises questions about existing tooling (ie, we still have to maintain the forum, and who is going to own the new subdomain and its associated content? how does it link in with our pre-existing tooling?).

I tend to agree with @lexa 's take that what is really needed here is a peer to peer social layer that provides support for organization and moderation on the forum. With that kind of dedicated support, it can be possible to create a rich informational hub that contains all of the raw data that someone might need to riff on it and spin up another solution. But perhaps it makes sense to get that rich informational hub layer right first before jumping into another project.

I do think it makes sense to work toward a community knowledge base for people to use to keep up with governance, but that’s a whole product that would require significant time and energy investment. Such a product should be able to:

  • make it easy to connect information from a variety of sources
  • enable participants to reach rough consensus about what content is relevant
  • grant authorities and powers to people based on some kind of additional context (which might want to take into account on-chain data)
  • have lasting, interoperable, and addressable content standards

But still, we can probably figure out how to prototype something like that using existing tooling like alongside a well-organized forum.


  • I agree that it would be awesome to have all that info in one place
  • imo integrating with existing solutions makes more sense than building new ones (thanks to lexa for that insight)
  • exploring social protocol on the forum is a high leverage design space that can help us reach the same outcomes without too many additional costs or new product ownership being spun up
1 Like