Weighted voting

Why is there so little information about weighted voting, what it is, how can anyone benefit from it, etc. In fact, we came to realize almost no one knows about it. What is the general consensus for that topic in Cosmos?


Really interesting question! I’ve wondered this too!

I’ve only seen it used once or twice in practice, I think.

hot take :
i guess overall validators don’t really want the information about it being fully democratised cause if pleb pressure push them to use it more frequently,

they would have to vote against their believes and “centralized” wishes on many proposals.

(but i may have misunderstood what weighted voting is, in that case, happy to be corrected)

From what I have understood allows “weighted voting” to vote both on Yes and No at the same time, but saying; for X% of my voting power I vote Yes and for (100-X)% of my voting power I vote No.

That is in essence a good solution if you consult your delegators and give them a vote in certain proposals, whereas you can either choose to go with the majority or do a weighted vote as a validator while listening to your delegators.

1 Like

The difficulty is to understand how to accurately translate feedback into vote-split percentage.

Super confused about this lol. Why would you vote both yes and no? As an alternative to abstain? The entire purpose of governance is to reach a decision so having indecisiveness as an input to that process seems unhelpful.

Delegators can already override their validator’s votes. There is no reason for a validator to use weighted voting to comply with delegator’s wishes


I tend to agree, which is why it looks like such a baffling thing to include in the system. It feels like such an admin-heavy and unhelpful addition to the gov process if each validator starts polling their delegators to decide how the validator should vote…anyone tuned in enough to vote on a validator poll is probably tuned in enough to actually vote with their own ATOM.

It feels like something that could become interesting and applicable if, say, Abstain ceased to exist. Or if delegators didn’t have the ability to override validators as-is. I wonder if it’s used more in any other ecosystem chains with different gov norms.

1 Like

wonder if the overriding function has the same outcome than a weighted vote when let’s say 80% of your delegators are non voters

Probably not the same outcome, but if those 80% are non-voters, how would their opinion influence a validator choosing to do a weighted vote?

What distinguishes a ‘non voter’ who just doesn’t care from a ‘non voter’ who cares but isn’t voting? And how would a validator offering weighted voting be more persuasive to that non voter than participating in governance directly?

hello lexa,
i was wondering more about the weight of the real abstention (non vote) on the final balance of power in these two cases.

and i have no answer about that as about your questions. no strong opinion.
maybe validators having no other abstention kind of vote than the weighted one would be more interested in conviction and pedagogy. don’t know.

i may think of too much differences between a blank vote and and a non vote :sweat_smile:

edit : anyway that’s an interesting topic.
off topic - on my side i would be more interested to change consisting in modularizing the vote period vals/deleg than changing abstentions possibilities

1 Like

Yeah, but it becomes annoying if 50/50 weighted voting becomes the new Abstain…

So an obligation to explain why you are voting something might be a better solution.
No explanation > not able to vote.

That would also counter empty “Yes” voted because it is easier to do so.

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.