Quorum is the point. Arbitrary or not, it is one of the variable that we have all agreed to and plays a serious part in governance. This answer would only make any kind of sense if you are requesting governace remove quorum and go for a simple Yes/No vote. And again good luck with that.
If you leave in quorum requirements and remove abstain votes, what you are demanding is a halt in governance. Most props will not hit quorum or validators will default to a, âNOâ, vote, as a no vote will styme change and keep the status quo. We would get even more friction than we have now and little to no proposition would pass, even if more actual wallets vote, âYESâ.
How removing abstain votes solves a problem (if this is a problem)? Delegators are overriding the vote already.
I didnât vote on this proposal, but my validator seem to vote NO: which was indifferent to me. We are talking about very small PR budget here. Right now, these content creators has great pressure on them to do something better. I am kinda hopeful at this point that they might create some nicer videos, hope they are outsourcing editing / visual production to professionals (and this is a tight budget tbh).
Lexa is no longer in charge of the moderation, and I will do my best on following up on all the channels/socials but due to Christmas Holidays might be particularly challenging. Would recommend to everyone to accept governance decision and donât blame people because of it. At the same time, people have all the right to try to change things if they donât find them right. Letâs try to all be constructive with our criticism as we are all here with the best of the hub in our minds
2 Likes
there s no point to quorum, it is decorative.
the top 100 validators decide what passes or not by using other peoples votes. many have no investment into the chain and are using their power to take from delegators and distribute community funds to themselves.
2 Likes
Delegators do have the ability to override votes, but the vast majority of materialized voting power is coming from validators, which in this case was abstain. Removing abstain solves the problem by not reaching quorum without legitimate support from individuals.
The number of wallets voting a certain way is irrelevant, there are tons of examples of wallets with barely any stake voting yes on proposals; this is also often unrelated to the proposer (aka not assuming bad intent on cosmic validator). For example, Akash prop 21 had ~13000 yes votes most of which were wallets with barely any balance. Weâre interested in the total stake exerted by individual voters.
no, it just forces validators to cast other peoples votes yes or no.
abstain means the validator doesnt find the proposal malicious, but doesnt agree with the proposal, and delegators votes will be the only ones to count toward the decision.
if all validators voted abstain, governance would be decided by the stake holders=the community
not sure why, but slow mode makes it so i cant edit my original reply, forcing us to stare at that unsightly deleted response box
Yes I donât think we are disagreeing on most things. But because abstain counts towards quorum I am counting it as having an effect. If validators were forced yes or no, hopefully they would err towards no. Even if not, in my opinion abstain is the copout answer for a validator to look like they are participating in governance while refusing to take any stand. If they donât want to take a stand, they just shouldnât vote. Although I agree it seems to be the best option to remove them voting delegatorâs stake altogether.
I think @lexa put us in slow mode when Cosmic Validator complained to censor us.
Will check about this
2 Likes
âAbstainâ is imo one of the ugliest options possible in governance, but sometimes necessary. For example; not everyone is as skilled in smart contract uploads which go through governance. That kind of stuff needs an abstain for validators/delegators who simply do not have the expertise, but want to help a proposal reach quorum and putting trust in the people who have the expertise.
However, I do agree that some validators use âabstainâ a bit too often (some seem to have a subscription to it). Doing abstain on each and every proposal is worse than not voting to me. Since on Mintscan it will look like a validator cares about governance, but in reality doesnât give a ****.
As @Cosmic_Validator rightfully says, removing âAbstainâ is not the option is you leave the weighted option to exist. The way out would be to limit the usage of âAbstainâ per validator through code OR that delegators start caring where they put their stake. There are a lot of validators who actually care how the chain they validate on is developing. If delegators start caring about that and delegate accordingly this whole problem would be gone.
i think this might cause many props staying below quorum, validators might not vote instead of abstaining (like big CEX are not voting for any proposals).
quorum is ornamental. governance is decided by the same handful of validators. this is even more evident when validators choose to vote with abstain and let their delegators make the decisions by overriding their vote.
There clearly is a need for a change up in also the voting mechanism of governance.
Abstain vote is meant to be there when an entity expresses no opinion / doesnât have the technical knowledge to express that opinion but still wish to participate to the vote getting passed (I am assuming that an entity would want this because the rest of the ecosystem who have a more âeducatedâ guess will act and vote accordingly.)
It is true that some entities like to use the abstain vote more than others. This could cause issues as these entities would just be, as some people said, not giving a damn about conducting proper governance. Also, those who abstain a lot could also be showing that they possibly lack the proper knowledge to partake in governance which is another issue.
I donât think removing the abstain vote is ideal cause it could be useful in some cases when it comes to those who really canât make an educated and best guess about a certain proposal.
There should be other measures in place possibly such as maybe limiting the number of abstains an entity can make. However, this could lead to other issues such as the entity making a random yes / no decision so more thought would need to be put into this.
Another possible remedy (possibly unrelated to the abstain discussion above - but is related to Prop 89) is to set a different date by when validators should vote. This would allow a buffer period for delegators to override a possilbe âlast minuteâ vote that a validator makes.
1 Like
Little bit Disagree, the real problem is Token cosmos holder doesnât participated at governance. So i prefer a proposal to educate holders ! Indeed A new project is building on Cosmos, GOVMOS with Phil_RX.
I think they put that on hold at the moment from the forum thread i was following.
1 Like
Indeed !
Thx 
validators vote in their own interests with other peoples stake. The issue is the lack of incentive for validators to vote in the interest of the chains they validate. everything seems to be headed toward an amalgamation of abstracted liquidity from all chains which puts validators in even more control of the market within the ecosystem. no chains are sovereign, the cosmos is ruled by a cohort of validators controlling all of its chains. why would people become an investor in any cosmos chain when its success is based on the whims of a few validators?
First, thanks for initiating this on the forum.
Possible rule (?):
- Validators w/ .17% voting power, or above (aka Top 80) are required to abstain from proposals
I echo @common_spellingâs sentiment:
Also agree that completely removing the abstain isnât the solution here, although again appreciate the initiative.
Not to harshly exclude, but Iâm sure we donât want other big players like Coinbase or Binance to participate in governance, especially when considering the ratio of self bonded vs delegations, etc.
Much to consider and further evidence to tackle/implement the Atom One Constitution, together.
@catdotfish @lexa thank you for the work you do in moderating
1 Like
+1 for the idea to have a buffer time for delegators. It would avoid last minute shift, also itâll let time to redelegate if the vote doesnât fit the user