The deadline for prop #82 on November 14th looms, bringing with it a flurry of activity and deliberation in the Cosmosverse.
As it stands at the time of writing, the proposal looks set to pass and narrowly avoid a NoWithVeto (NWV) annulment; the proposal will not pass if at least 33.4% vote NWV.
The Yes camp currently have 59.73% of the votes, and NWV is sitting at 31.30%. with almost two thirds of voters having cast their vote. Check out the live voting percentages here:
Imperator Vote Change
Imperator validators changed their vote from Yes to NoWithVeto last night.
In a Twitter thread, they asserted multiple reasons for the vote change such as the "controversial" nature of the proposal which "increases the systemic risk on the Cosmos Hub" and creates "an inflationary system".
GAME, the 8th largest validator on the CosmosHub, decided to Abstain today.
Notable tweets in the Twitterverse came from Jae Kwon, Tosch (SG-1 validator), and Youssef Amrani.
Jae urged those who have voted 'No' or 'Abstain' to consider changing to NoWithVeto.
Tosch, the co-founder of SG1, the 4th largest validator on the Cosmos Hub gave his reasoning for a 'Yes' vote. In the thread, he outlines that:
"this is a Signal Proposal... uploaded by key players... that cared and shipped for a long time. Voting "NoWithVeto" regards the proposal as harmful and they might be gone for good."
He goes on to add:
"If they get turned down heavily by the Hub, they will just look for other ventures and way to make money (they got companies and employees to pay)."
Read the full Twitter thread at the link below:
Youssef Amrani calls on Cosmonauts to vote on prop #82 as the voting period comes to a close. He reiterates that this is "a signaling proposal" and states that:
"Prop 82 is a vote on the vision, not the How. The How is expressed in the Charter, which is a living document"
Find the full thread below which includes the link to the Charter 2 document.
Prop #86 was published by a community member yesterday. As more of an opinion piece on prop #82 than a genuine proposal in itself, it is being heavily rejected.
However this proposal does raise the issue of potential forks in the future. Read more about how NoWithVeto voters could potenitally be forked out of the chain in the "What The Fork" section below.
Read prop #86 here:
In the newly created 'Cosmos Hub Validators' chat, the topics of a potential fork, the time allowed for the proposal, ATOM 2.0 and more Jae Kwon controversy were discussed.
We have summarised some of the highlights from these debates below. You can peruse the validator chat for yourself at the link here:
Earlier today, discussions were had concerning the length of time allowed to decide on the proposal.
What the Fork?
Today, talks in the 'Cosmos Hub Validators' chat moved to the potential of a fork.
Kevin Garrison of Oni validator gives his opinion on forking based on votes:
Sam Hart wrote that he would rather fork out non-participators.
Context For A Potential Fork
Before we go on to the rest of the fork chat, here's a little context about the potential for NWV voters to be forked out of the hub in the future. In Sam Hart's Tweet below from November 11th, he shares a screenshot of prop #75 wherein it outlines:
"Because voting is not private, 'NoWithVeto' voters (who likely hold a minority opinion) make themselves potential targets for being forked out of the chain in order for the the majority to pass a proposal."
Please see the screenshots below from the 'Community $ATOM Governance Discussions' Telegram chat today.
Back to today's proceedings in the validator chat, Kevin Garrison suggests that non-voting validators should be forked out.
CapriciousSage outlines how a fork in CosmosHub could threaten the entire ecosystem.
CapriciousSage questions the practicalities and costs of forking.
The prospect of a fork got some pushback from Abraham, Jack and Park Feierbach.
Jacob & Jack v Jae & AiB
This afternoon Jacob asked Jack if Jae Kwon's behaviour damages "the economic viability of Cosmos hub -4". Following on from this, rumours of Jae paying Nick (AtomDragon) as a bribe or for memes is discussed, and Gadikian claims that Jae shared images on his Twitter of Jacob "after nearly being beaten to death with rocks" (but have since been deleted).
As Jacob and Jack pile on the heat, Pupmos calls for balance.
Jacob provides some context to the situation.
When asked by CapriciousSage what Jacob would like to see as a solution to his concerns about Jae, Jacob proposed to create a fork of Cosmo's hub-4 with it's own native token that excludes Jae Kwon and AiB.
Zdeadex calls for fragmentation of proposals.
Jack Zampolin accused AiB validators of "promising to withhold contracts and other deals from teams who don't vote NWV" in both the Telegram chat and on Twitter.
Capricious Sage and Jésus ask for evidence of these claims.
Jack provides evidence in the form of a Tweet.
Below is the link to the tweet which Jack pasted in the Telegram chat above.
Harry and Catdotfish call on Jack not to feed the trolls.
Another hectic day of prop #82 debates as both the Yes and NoWithVeto camps continue to strive for their vision of the best path forward for the future of the CosmosHub.
At this stage it's still a relatively close race. Will the proposal pass as is? Or will the NoWithVeto tally creep past the required 33.4% in time for the end of the voting period on November 14th?
No matter what happens, it's sure to be a very interesting weekend.
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. Thank you for reading, fellow Cosmonauts!