[PROPOSAL] Refund Burned Proposal Deposits

Looking forward to working with @sunnya97 (Sikka) to make this happen! Grateful for any feedback and support from other stakeholders. My suggested timeline for this proposal is to get it live by the end of September, after the Cosmos Hub 3 upgrade takes place so that we can access the community fund.

Prior to Proposal 6, Cosmos governance proposals that did not reach majority ‘yes’ votes would have their requisite 512 ATOMs burned. With the passing of Proposal 6, we can infer that the Cosmos community may want to refund the burned deposits of individuals that participated in proposals that failed to pass.

This proposal is intended to spend ATOMs from the Cosmos community fund to refund each address that deposited ATOMs on proposals in which the ATOMs were burned.

Main outstanding issue here is that we can’t make a single governance proposal to refund each account.
We either have to make a proposal for each address to refund, or send the total amount to one address and manually distribute the refunds. Or some other fancy thing that I haven’t thought of yet.

The issue is probably not that big after all. Surely the community could find a person or an entity to trust to be the initial recipient of the atoms, and then have them redistribute to the addresses included in the final proposal, e.g. I can’t envision that Figment would find the resulting reputational damage to be worth the atoms it would be able to score by not forwarding them to the intended recipients. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I have a question / remark to the proposal. It currently states

Thanks to Sikka for the Proposal 6 and Proposal 7, which protect no-voted proposal deposits from being burned and activate the use of the community pool, respectively.

As I read Proposal 6, the non-burning applies to all proposal outcomes, except for vetoed proposals:

We instead propose that the deposit be returned on failed votes, and that the deposit only be burned on vetoed votes.

Notably, this also applies to proposals that fail to reach quorum, e.g. proposal 4.

Is it intentional that the proposal does not appear to include this case?

Update: And now I managed to read all the way to the end of proposal 6 :slight_smile: and found the last sentence:

if a proposal fails to meet quorum its deposit will be burned.

Which largely renders my points above moot.

1 Like

Hey Henrik, good catch! Yes, it is intentional. We abandoned Prop15, and I’m hoping to refund the ATOMs lost from that failed attempt using the community fund.