Prop #82 was one for the history books, with a record number of NoWithVeto votes and split-hair results dividing much of the community into opposing camps.
Now that the dust has settled and we've had some time to recover from the dramatics of it all, what happens next?
We've gathered the opinions of some of the largest contributors and influencers in the community to figure out what the future may hold.
Authors of Prop #82
- Sam
Sam Hart outlined how he will remain in the Cosmos community but will be taking a step back from the Hub & ICF.
Though imperfect, I believe I delivered what I set out to do. Now it’s time to step back from the Hub & the ICF, & to let others write the next chapter. I’ll be taking time to gather strength but plan to sick around Cosmos & look forward to the next adventure. ⚛️
— Sam Hart (@hxrts) November 14, 2022
This was confirmed on the validator Telegram chat.
- Zaki, Ethan & Jack
Zaki Manian, Ethan Buchman, and Jack Zampolin hosted a live stream soon after the veto of prop #82 on Twitter. We have summarized the main points of this discussion below, but for full context you can check out the entire video here:
Live with @zmanian @buchmanster and @jackzampolin on Prop 82.https://t.co/vZcxjopmR7
— Zaki ⚛️🍷 (@zmanian) November 14, 2022
TL;DW
For all three on the call, the message was received loud and clear that a lot of the community wasn't fully on board with their proposal for ATOM 2.0, and that they have some work to do.
They asked for more feedback and collaboration, while agreeing that forking is not a solution for any of the challenges regarding prop #82.
For Zaki, the objection to the treasury, uncertainty around it as a concept, and language barriers were key issues. He also shared that the goodwill he thought he had earned through his work of on-boarding new chains was not recognized by the majority of ATOM holders.
Jack agreed with both of these sentiments outlining that the feedback they received "is discouraging frankly and very tough".
Jack touched on the recent FTX collapse and how a lot of people have mistrust of centralized entities. For him, this sentiment also came through in prop #82. He outlined the clear community opposition to minting and preference for an increase in community tax.
Ethan approved of increasing the tax on the community pool saying it's "something we should have done a long time ago". He also talked about encouraging donations to the community pool to start funding more development directly.
Ethan later summed up what he's focusing on for the future via Twitter, further adding that he respects the decisions of all voters, and that as a signaling proposal, the concerns of the community have been heard and will be addressed.
1/ Some reflections on the @cosmoshub prop82 vote. This was surely the most controversial proposal in the Hub’s history, and now that it’s been rejected, there is lots to follow up on!
— Ethan Buchman (🐝,🦇) (@buchmanster) November 14, 2022
- Jehan
Way back on November 10th, Jehan Tremback posted a Google doc inviting collaborators for working out how the community pool and tax could work.
Underneath all the noise, the Atom 2.0 and Atom One camps all want the same thing: A healthy and growing Cosmos Hub. Me, @adriana_kalpa, @zmanian, @jaekwon, @jackzampolin and @buchmanster have been working on this doc, and are looking for collaborators https://t.co/8vPvcxaEP3
— jehan (@JTremback) November 10, 2022
Following on from this, a draft proposal has been posted to the Cosmos Hub titled 'Increasing Hub Community Tax'.
Looks like someone put the doc that we were working on last week on the forum! https://t.co/aHLQeI42d9
— jehan (@JTremback) November 16, 2022
Would love to hear what people think- does this seem better than the minting proposal in prop 82 that just got voted down?
📢 Cosmonauts, help shape the future of Cosmos Hub!
— Cosmos Hub ⚛️ (@cosmoshub) November 18, 2022
Following recent discussions, a draft proposal - Increasing Hub Community Tax - was submitted by the Simply Staking validator on the Cosmos Forum.
Join the conversation now!https://t.co/aH4Sz7MFme pic.twitter.com/RnfNvZBFcn
In this document, community concerns around the treasury and minting are addressed:
The proposed solution was to have a direct mint of tokens to a treasury pool. However, the Hub already has a Community Pool that has been used in the past for various community spend proposals. This pool is funded through taxation on a per-block basis. The current tax rate (as will be discussed further below) is 2%. By increasing this we can achieve a similar outcome of expanding the pool of funds available for public good funding, without the immediate creation of a new entity or the bulk minting of ATOM.
Here's what increasing the community tax could look like:
Instead of the current 0.192ATOM (0.02*9.6) being transferred to the pool with the 2% tax, a proposed 0.67ATOM (if 7%) will be given to the community pool per block. Per day this equates to (according to minting parameters) ~8,025 ATOM directed to the community pool. Yearly would add up to ~2.9M ATOMS to the pool which is significantly higher than the roughly 850K ATOM added yearly (according to current metrics).
- Youssef
Youssef Amrani gave his thoughts on prop #82 last week.
The signaling proposal (82) was rejected. I did not want to react immediately and preferred to take a few days in order to provide a less emotional, more rational perspective.
— Youssef Amrani (@youssef_amrani) November 16, 2022
A thread about this journey & the lessons I learned.
🧵
Although expressing his disappointment at the result, he admits that "the scope of prop 82 was too large". For him, the future will involve focusing on addressing the mistrust of ATOM holders, and encourage feedback earlier in the cycle so that changes can be made before a proposal is published. Check out more in the full thread above.
- Sacha
Sacha Saint-Leger shared concerns about key players in the Cosmosverse and how they can shape proposals. Jehan and Sam agreed and acknowledged that communication could be better in the future.
if community pool is the future of atom then we’re going to need a full time mental health team
— sacha 🛡️ (@ssaintleger) November 15, 2022
Having some byzantine system of treasuries and councils scared the voters precisely because they felt their agency was being taken away.
— jehan (@JTremback) November 15, 2022
fwiw, my personal view is that this runs much deeper than just prop82
— sacha 🛡️ (@ssaintleger) November 15, 2022
as long as Jae is involved in shaping the culture, the best contributors will leave
for better or worse, founder mindset has a contagious effect on communityhttps://t.co/MkNz6qehfm
The Newsletter
Sign up to learn the latest about the Cosmos ecosystem.
Other Voices
- Jae Kwon
In a Twitter thread, Jae Kwon outlines how exhausting the vote has been for all involved and called for some time to reflect before working on changes and new proposals.
Prop 82 voting is over. It has failed with a veto vote.
— ☀️☀️☀️ Jae Kwon ☀️☀️☀️ (@jaekwon) November 14, 2022
Regardless of your stance on atom2, this has been a difficult journey for all of us.
For Jae, the best solution is "to increase the tax rate and remove the minimum inflation bounds of 7%".
When we have had some down time, we can come back and figure out how to move forward for the hub. The best solution that I know of is to increase the tax rate and remove the minimum inflation bounds of 7%;
— ☀️☀️☀️ Jae Kwon ☀️☀️☀️ (@jaekwon) November 14, 2022
Jae called for future talks to take place in open forums instead of on Telegram.
Instead of drafting a whitepaper in closed circles, let’s have discussions out in the open and see who can make a solid case for minimal changes we can all agree on. We should do this in open forums where we can spend more time deliberating, rather than in chat apps.
— ☀️☀️☀️ Jae Kwon ☀️☀️☀️ (@jaekwon) November 14, 2022
Later, in another Twitter thread, Jae accused Ethan Buchman of:
flirting with the idea of a "one global currency... backed by the largest and strongest nation state government" and sharing anti-Christian memes and donning that meme which is associated with the "mark of the beast"?
— ☀️☀️☀️ Jae Kwon ☀️☀️☀️ (@jaekwon) November 14, 2022
He goes on to ask for more truthful communications, more ICF contributions to development, and better processes to hear from community voices.
Can we do more to have the ICF contribute toward the development of the ideas we have been discussing, since 2/3 FC members of the ICF voted yes for atom2, and the ICF got those ATOMs for the purpose of Cosmos development?
— ☀️☀️☀️ Jae Kwon ☀️☀️☀️ (@jaekwon) November 14, 2022
If we can do this, then we can all work together to improve the hub, which should be home for all of us, especially the dissenters who wish to keep decentralization & security. We mostly all agree about the importance of ICS, so that killer apps can be hosted by the hub.
— ☀️☀️☀️ Jae Kwon ☀️☀️☀️ (@jaekwon) November 14, 2022
- Adriana
Adriana of KalpaTech shared a draft document proposing to increase the community pool tax from 2% to 10% as a solution to rectify the issues addressed in prop #82. For Adriana:
"the Community Pool Tax rate increase will provide the additional funds necessary to help drive further development and innovation for the Cosmos Hub."
Community COSMOS HUB ATOM 2.1- Part 1
— Adriana ⚛️ (@adriana_kalpa) November 17, 2022
KalpaTech is very much in support of increasing the @cosmoshub community pool tax to a level of 10% (from current 2%).
One of our solutions proposed with our NWV vote, was exactly this implementation.https://t.co/n37ic3DQUQ
Read the draft and conversation on the Cosmos Hub forum here:

- Sunny
Sunny expressed his concerns regarding having too many changes in one proposal and wishes to split them into multiple smaller modules going forward.

Final Thoughts
With the raging wildfire that was prop #82 now quenched, both sides of the vote have emerged from it's fiery embers feeling uncertain and fragmented.
Sure, there is plenty of work to be done, but solutions can be found. New conversations on community tax are taking place on the Cosmos Hub forum - a positive move towards compromise in the future of the funding structure for the Cosmos Hub.
Many hard lessons were learned regarding the size of proposals, means of communication, transparency of conversations, and the interpersonal conflicts of leaders in the space. This will hopefully lead to better communication and clearer proposals in the future.
Prop #82 also had a huge voter turnout, highlighting just how much voters truly care about the trajectory of the Hub. Perhaps more Cosmonauts will now feel emboldened to voice their opinions and offer input on the future of the chain.
Finally, with ICS (Interchain Security) set to launch in January 2023, it will become evermore important that the community finds common ground and moves forward decisively. Read more about ICS here:

If you've been enjoying our series on prop #82, please consider following our Twitter page.
We put a lot of effort into synthesizing the many discussions and updates that happen in the Cosmosverse everyday.
If you think we provide value, please help us by sharing. Thank you for reading, fellow Cosmonauts!