Proposal #796
Rejected on 19 May 2023: only 32.9% of the decisive votes said yes.
Yes
15.2%
32.9% without abstain
Veto
0.2%
of votes cast
Ended
19 May 2023
15.25%
of votes cast
53.66%
of votes cast
30.93%
of votes cast
0.16%
of votes cast
The cosmos hub has an elegant method for dealing with spam, known as veto. It deals with genuine spam proposals very well. But what does it mean under the hood? Well, what it means under the hood is that you vote for no and you vote for veto at the same time, you’re making two votes. If the tally for veto reaches 33%, the deposit on the proposal is burned and the proposal automatically fails.
Since there is absolutely no way to mandate a definition of spam and everybody is going to interpret that differently and it makes no sense whatsoever to argue about that, I propose that we nullify proposal 75, AND free the authors of governance proposals from writing tedious vote options because those are defined very well in the software. Luckily, our community is more than intelligent enough to interpret on their own, what the vote options do, and the documentation of the vote options is highly effective.
Finally, I believe that it makes sense to require only explaining the yes option, as doing otherwise can land a punter in hot water.
Therefore, to make governance simpler in all ways, and increase participation in governance, and remove the crazy burn two sticks of incense and say 10 hail Marys before approaching Cosmos hub governance to save thyself from Gaia’s proceduralist faction, we should do the logical thing, and require only that YES, be defined. All other vote options are defined by the underlying software and its documentation.
vote YES to nullify proposal 75, require that YES be defined, and use all other vote options as described by the cosmos-sdk.