Things continue to ramp up as we approach the Sunday deadline for voting on prop #82. At the time of writing, the votes stand at 65.02% Yes and 29.40% NoWithVeto.
The NoWithVeto percentage has been steadily trending upwards, up almost 4% in the past three days. If at least 33.4% of voters vote NoWithVeto, the proposal cannot pass.
Check out the live voting percentages here:
A New Concern for Jae Kwon
Jae once again called on Cosmonauts to vote NoWithVeto on prop #82 today. For the first time however, he referred to his concerns about the risks of liquid staking, asking:
“Has anyone at all considered this simple risk in analysis about the dangers of liquid staking? I've never considered it until now.”
Dear @cosmos @cosmoshub validators, Liquid Staking combined with shorting markets will incentivize your employees to sabotage your own validator. Please vote NoWithVeto on prop82, which goes all in on liquid staking. Save the Cosmos and your business! https://t.co/EQ9rpmqHZl
— ☀️☀️☀️ Jae Kwon ☀️☀️☀️ (@jaekwon) November 10, 2022
The proposal #82 document outlines the requirement for liquid staking as follows:
A practical consequence of the current competition between staking and external uses of capital is that most staking assets are confined to their originating chain, which hinders cross-chain composability. Therefore, full economic integration of the interchain requires liquid staking.
Read more about the proposed liquid staking in Section 2.2 of the prop #82 proposal document.
Validator Updates
StakeLab Tweeted that they will be voting NoWithVeto as "words are important" and they do not agree fully with every element that is being proposed.
After weeks of exploration and discussions with many different actors of the @cosmoshub, today we wanna announce our position as @StakeLab on the proposition 82 (https://t.co/dlh9i7Fb1n).
— StakeLab (@StakeLab) November 10, 2022
We remain available for any questions in our telegram channel: https://t.co/kdlELcw2bG
Imperator, having previously voted Yes on prop #82, are now taking Jae Kwon’s insights on board as they rethink their decision. Will they change their vote?
We just had an awesome chat with @jaekwon today. He cares a lot about the Hub & wants the best for the community. He mentioned the flaws related to the ATOM 2.0 whitepaper and all are very fair points.
— Imperator.co (@imperator_co) November 9, 2022
Currently rethinking our decision on prop #82.https://t.co/NImSAJrvpu
Posthuman validators changed their vote today from No to NoWithVeto. In a Tweet thread, they explained their reasoning as follows:
"If we have so many votes NoWithVeto - it means that something wrong with Proposal #82. Also, it means that we need to change our voting from YES to NO, to show to our community that we care about their opinion, and ready to reach the Consensus"
1/10
— POSTHUMAN ∞ DVS (@POSTHUMAN_DVS) November 10, 2022
POSTHUMAN revoted from NO to NoWithVeto on Proposal #82
We became 18th validator who vote NWV on Proposal #82
Why did we do it?
Read this thread:
🔽🔽🔽 pic.twitter.com/87ZcVaaGik
Other Notable NoWithVeto Votes
Ban Hammers
It all went down in the AtomGov Telegram chat as discussions turned to the topic of banning users that personally insult others, and reinstating previously banished users.
Jacob forwarded a screenshot showing Jae calling others "bastards".
Jacob also recorded a small audio clip in which he called out sock puppet accounts within the different social media platforms. 😂
Two Sides of the Same Coin
Another hectic day of prop #82 debates comes to a close with a plethora of yet more questions and issues to be resolved, as the Yes and NoWithVeto camps fight for the vision of the best solution for the future of the CosmosHub.
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 be seen!
