The governance has spoken, and numbers speak louder than words. Let’s delve into the statistics to underscore what the vote reveals.
Source: Mintscan
Validator Participation
This heatmap representation demonstrates that weighted participation, regarding vote power, is well-distributed across the spectrum. The orders of magnitude between larger and smaller validators are similar, showing no signs of particular influence in the validator set.
Vote distribution is 48.75% for, 23.13% against, along with 28,12% abstain. Compared to the number of involved validators, accounting for a share of 52.6% voting for, 29.77% against, and 16,03% abstain (these ratios are related to the 131 validators who voted). The relatively similar share confirms the previous assumption that the overall vote distribution is balanced across the participating validators.
Accounts Participation
Something interesting emerges when we look at the voted accounts. Compared to validators, here we have a large majority of yes voters. But on the contrary, the weight-related votes account for similar distributions as the validator votes we saw previously (25% for versus 48% against). The only divergence pertains to the small account holders who apparently voted yes more than no but were overwhelmingly diluted in the overall weight counts.
Dynamic Trend Analysis
Token-weighted dynamics show that yes votes had initially pushed the trend but were rapidly overwhelmed by no votes, which then took the lead and kept the advantage for the remaining part. This shows an undisputed victory, with the overall yes count even falling below the abstain share in the final days. Yes voters might have hoped for the remaining voters to join them, but the results were undeniable. Around the 20th, SG1 voted abstain, reducing the chances of winning close to 0.
Looking at the accounts dynamic, we note that the vast majority of yes voters voted during the first two days. After that initial period, the relative share shifted to a balanced yes/no votes and then switched in favor of no vote growth heading into the final days. This disparity between the dynamics is quite concerning and could be evidence that some of the yes voters are potentially fake accounts. This is a conclusion that some participants have raised in the past on some other controversial votes like this one. We commend further analysis on this to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong.
Summary
Here is a table showing all the relative numbers next to each other:
| Category | Yes | No | Abstain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validator Global Votes | 23,13% | 48,75% | 28,12% |
| Validator Individual Votes | 29,77% | 52,67% | 16,03% |
| Accounts Global Votes | 25,10% | 48,62% | 25,91% |
| Accounts Individual Votes | 56,62%% | 34,31% | 7,25% |
Conclusion
Overall, the conclusion shows evidence of a well-conducted vote. The accounts versus weight-based voting disparity seems to be heavily concentrated in the first two days of activity, which arguably signals that further investigation might be needed to determine if sibyl account voting has taken place or not. Despite that, the numbers don’t lie; this is a clear NO vote that stands out on this proposal. This is evidence of the similar distribution between individual accounts weighted votes and the validators’ votes. The distribution of votes among validator vote power is also closely aligned.
Regarding the implications of this rejection, we won’t take the responsibility to speak in the name of the entire community, but we hope this won’t stop the tokenomics reform as a whole.
Thank you for your attention!
