Good idea, I agree. Governance needs to be fixed.
Hello everyone , Dear @Govmos Phil ,
thank for this call.
Allow Me a Tiered Approach for a Higher Minimum Deposit Amount Required for Submitting Proposals Within Cosmos Hub Governance
Higher min. deposit: To curb trivial suggestions, propose setting an approximate threshold of 500 ATOMs – not burdensome but sufficient to dissuade casual attempts.Implement a tiered system featuring escalating minimum deposits for actionable initiatives:
Higher minimum deposit: Demand ~500 ATOMs when filing proposals, balancing serious intent versus financial constraints faced by many members.
Tiered structure: Categorize projects into levels reflecting magnitude and priority using variable investment criteria:
-
Tier 1: Small issue resolution or standard management duties call for Xquantity of tokens. -
Tier 2: Enhancing core infrastructure warrants doubling the above figure (roughly 2 * X) due to heightened risk exposure. -
Tier 3: Pioneering breakthroughs command almost twofold increase compared to Tier 2 (nearly 2 * (2 * X)), emphasizing rigorous scrutiny needed ahead of substantial resource allocation.
With this streamlined format, readers quickly grasp how progressive layers promote quality contributions through proportionate incentives tied directly to project scale and urgency. Well done! 
Dont hesitate dear @Govmos team and Phil to contact me for more great bizness deal we can make together .
5 Likes
Does No-With-Veto not deter these kinds of proposals? Isn’t that what that vote parameter is for? If the people want to throw away $10,000 putting up spammy proposals like these - I don’t see how it affects the ecosystem negatively.
1 Like
Seems that one of the most logical ways to raise the participation levels and at the same time to remove ddos attacks on governance is not putting a very high price on submitting a proposal, but rather (doing it, but with a twist) introducing minimum quorum.
I.E. if a prop costs, lets say 1000 atoms, then the deposit has to come from a minimum of 100 accounts. An account can still deposit 1000 atoms to show his will to push the prop forward, yet it would only o through, once the minimum quorum would be reached. This would require people to cooperate a lot more on a proposal and would make it “skin in the game”, rather than “the price is too high”
Of course, it would mean 2 things:
- Separation of proposal types (software upgrades cannot be taken like this)
- The current prop times cannot go along with this
1 Like
This can easily be manipulated. Not a viable solution imho.
Anyway we will open a broad discussion on the governance framework after this vote.
First we need to get it on-chain, we’re late on the schedule but there’s just so many things to take care of these days!
2 Likes
Please post this prop ASAP, we now have 9/10 SCAM proposals on the chain.
2 Likes
I dont see how this is easier to manipulate then what is today
Dear @Kpital, the tiered deposit structure and quorum requirements address concerns raised by Govmos and serejandmyself.
High enough to deter spam, but not so high that it becomes prohibitive for genuine community participation in governance, while allowing lower-cost options to preserve accessibility and representation.
The gradual increase in deposit amounts provides a clear, transparent framework.
Building on serejandmyself’s idea, the quorum requirement adds nuance - Tier 1 (500 ATOM) needs 10 unique accounts, Tier 2 (1,000 ATOM) requires 25, and Tier 3 (2,000 ATOM) demands 50. This addresses potential manipulation while preserving accessibility for smaller participants to pool resources.
Implementation may be gradual.
Starting with Tier 1, the community will monitor impact on proposal quality and participation. Based on outcomes, Tiers 2 and 3 can be incrementally increased, allowing the community to assess effectiveness and make adjustments as needed.
Transparent evaluation through forums, data analysis, and community proposals for parameter changes will enable vigilant monitoring and refinements.
The tiered structure, though crafted to address diverse needs, risks introducing overhead and confusion.
Clear communication and ease of use is paramount, to avoid barriers to full engagement.
While the gradual approach is commendable, it does not entirely shield us from unintended consequences, like discouraging participation and creating imbalance. Vigilant monitoring and agility will be crucial.
Potential barriers to participation, even with lower tiers, must be considered. The deposit requirements, though calibrated, could still pose challenges for smaller validators or community members, potentially limiting involvement. Exploring mechanisms like crowdfunding or subsidies to support these stakeholders would be prudent.
An incremental, data-driven approach appears to be the preferred path forward.
Enforcement, compliance, and governance overhead also demand attention, to ensure efficient processes that don’t impede progress.
In conclusion, the proposed solution presents a well-considered approach, but we must remain vigilant and proactive in addressing these considerations to forge a governance framework that stands the test of time and empowers our dynamic Cosmos community. Maintaining a healthy skepticism is important, but it’s also crucial to approach such evaluations with an open mind and a willingness to consider multiple viewpoints.
2 Likes
Agreed to raise the minimum amount to 1000 ATOM
At this stage, we believe further increases to the minDeposit parameter may not be necessary and could even have unintended consequences by limiting the participation of regular community members in decentralized governance. Since Proposal #980 raised the minDeposit to 500 ATOM, we have not observed any new spam proposals. While this could partly be due to the holiday season, we recommend maintaining the current threshold until clear evidence emerges of disproportionate spam activity, as seen prior to the adjustment. Keeping governance accessible should remain a priority.
That said, we are open to revisiting the deposit amount within the broader context of governance reform for the Cosmos Hub. We have plans to propose this discussion in Q1 2025, aligning it with potential constitutional framework deliberations. We are currently coordinating with other community members on this initiative, aiming to integrate governance improvements into a comprehensive constitutional proposal. For further insights on this topic, see the ongoing discussion here.
We encourage everyone to actively participate in these important debates—whether on governance reform or the broader constitutional framework. Your input will be invaluable!
Thank you for reading,
Govmos.
1 Like