Hello everyone, I am starting this thread to submit opinions that I have been able to gather from several inexperienced cosmonauts.
The goal is to raise points that can be improved in order to improve the quality of the hub and to maintain our incredible community.
To avoid endless discussions and perpetual disagreements, cosmonauts need to follow a framework, a detailed lifeline at best. There are many complaints that the governance is corrupt but the only people who have all the ins and outs are those who are experienced, knowledgeable, and deeply involved in the development of the cosmos. I’m just a simple investor and member of several discord in France, and when people talk about cosmos hub, they don’t understand anything or say “bull techno but bear governance”. And this lack of clairvoyance leads to sloppy or unrealized votes. My analysis is that we are trying to build on perfectible foundations. Maybe we should consolidate the basics first and zoom out. Governance, documentation, regulation, transparency are significant points on which the DAO could work. It would be good to create a website or improve something existing in which everything related to the cosmos hub is referenced there. A space for new cosmonauts and masters of the cosmos who are looking for any information related to the hub. Whether it’s information on governance and how it works, current and past grant programs with details of teams, DAOs, ICF and the roles of each, list of Dapps in which Atom is involved, whitepaper and Moreover. I see it as a merger between Mintscan, the cosmos forum, and github, something well structured and very clear that brings visibility to newcomers. The objective of this site would be a centralization of information, documentation and regulation to avoid any inconvenience like the latest topics in the forum. A lot of the energy lost in endless battles could be salvaged and placed in the right place if these points were explicitly resolved. A lot of debates took place it seems to me but I saw no happy ending or closure of the debate or I am not aware of the decisions taken following that. Thank you all for taking the time to read me. @Youssef
“Whether it’s information on governance and how it works, current and past grant programs with details of teams, DAOs, ICF and the roles of each, list of Dapps in which Atom is involved, whitepaper and Moreover”, => this basic information part I think/hope is already integrated/combined in prop #202 “Interchain Info Funding” that is under voting atm. looking at the votes atm Prop #202 seems to have big community support.
Clear, transparent and verifyable info about which decisions are made and accountablity for actions/spending of grants and community fund accountability/project progress communication in a centralised place easily accessable is I think very very important indeed. It is my hope that prop #202 will make that happen. Otherwise this official cosmos website is the logical place to gather that basic information in a centralised place and make it available. Atm it does not, I could find only list of Dapps in the Cosmos system. Interchain.io also has some sparse info. But yeah, it is all a bit scattered and not easily available in one centralised place.
It is true that in the current voting system based on a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mechanism of the Cosmos Hub blockchain, the more ATOM tokens a holder has, the more weight their vote carries in governance voting. This can potentially create power imbalances and make the voting process less fair.
However, there are measures that the community can take to mitigate these imbalances and make the voting process more fair. For example:
- Imposing a participation cap: The community could establish a maximum limit on the number of tokens that a holder can use to vote. This would limit the weight of a single holder in the vote and allow for more equitable participation from the entire community.
- Delegation of votes: ATOM token holders can delegate their voting rights to another token holder or validator. This can help mitigate power imbalances by allowing smaller token holders to delegate their voting rights to validators they trust.
- Weighted voting: The community could introduce a weighted voting system that takes into account different factors such as the number of tokens held, the duration of token ownership, active participation in the community, etc. This could help give more equitable weight to the votes of token holders who may not necessarily hold a large number of tokens.
Quadratic voting is an alternative voting method that has been proposed as a solution to make the voting process more fair and give more weight to the votes of community members who do not necessarily hold a large number of tokens.
Quadratic voting works by giving more weight to the votes of community members who have smaller token quantities but are active and engaged in the community. Their vote would be weighted based on the square root of the number of tokens they hold, rather than the simple token amount.
Quadratic voting has the potential to make the voting process more fair by giving a stronger voice to active community members who may not necessarily hold large token quantities. This could encourage more active participation from the entire community and make governance of the Cosmos Hub blockchain more democratic.
However, it is important to note that quadratic voting can also have potential drawbacks. For example, it can be more difficult to implement and manage than the current voting system, and may require an additional level of complexity in the blockchain code. Additionally, it may be difficult to determine a quadratic voting mechanism that is fair and equitable for all community members.
Has weighted voting been explored to improve the governance system of the blockchain?
Thank you for your response.