Proposal #86
Rejected on 25 Nov 2022: 19.6% of the votes were veto, enough to sink it and burn the deposit.
Yes
1.9%
3.7% without abstain
Veto
19.6%
of votes cast
Ended
25 Nov 2022
1.87%
of votes cast
49.36%
of votes cast
29.17%
of votes cast
19.59%
of votes cast
If we count only stakers direct vote on ATOM2.0 we get this distribution: Yes 12,964,821 ATOM No 279,703 ATOM NWV 11,830,808 ATOM Abstain 520361 ATOM Clearly the proposal is extremely controversial, stakers are split 50% 50%, its also not popular as the majority of those 30k addresses are actually just bots using low balances and dust to influence perception of voters (snapshot as of Saturday) Seems like some external factors are influencing validators neutral representation of delegators. If the vote were to be unbiased the validator vote would represent the same distribution as the stakers vote, so why we ask why the validator vote is skewed towards yes. This justifies no with veto as a way for validators to protect the real interests of delegators, 50% of the delegator voting power is in disagreement its not a small minority.
Dilute 44m ATOMs and split:
Consumer chains 10%
The other 90% (risky speculative bets) 1 Invest in Cosmos early ventures 2 LP positions 3 token swaps 4 Lending 5 incentives to boost adoption of ATOM backed stable-coins
Explain to us why this is not worse than Alameda, dilute other peoples capital and gamble with it.
If the 90% used for gambling were to be removed then we would be left with a 4/5m ATOMs needed to fund consumer chains a more reasonable target which would be easily funded without the need for dilution but rather through a higher community pool tax (the tax shouldn't be in perpetuity and we should target a test amount for the first year not the full 4m).
The part of the proposal about speculating with stakers capital on LPing, loans, etc.. should be removed or Cosmos will just end up being the Do Kwon/ Luna/SBF/Alameda/FTX/Su Zhu of next cycle.
ATOM 2 is just gambling:
Not one of ATOM2.0 proposers has ever managed any money, nor they have consulted any money manager, they have zero history of AUM peformance.
ATOM 2.0 is a proposal by the ICF, no matter how much they deny, 2 ICF members (one senior) are cosigners (Ethan and Sam) we find it also very telling that they planned re-delegations at the same time as the ATOM2.0 vote, they will surely use those to reward compliant validators after the vote. After ATOM 2.0 gets implemented it will strengthen the case for ATOM to become a security as the treasury will be profit seeking and revenue sharing and ICF might be regarded as the issuing party as they are the main entity behind the ATOM2.0 paper and were one of the biggest entities during the ICO genesis allocation. Usually dilution is seen as the last alternative for financing and it’s a sign of a failing firm that can not gather funding in other ways, it’s the last chance, when you have no other option left, is the ICF solvent?
Why does a centralized council need to be created when the community pool works just fine? See Evmos for example. Anything in Atom 2.0 can be done slowly, while Cosmos reaps the reward of ICS, while 90% of chains like Solana fail, Cosmos took the turtle approach and got rewarded by being one of the best performers in the last year, now ICS is about to launch. Let’s see how it develops before committing to a highly risky plan, and please lets not split the community, lets abandon controversial changes.
A funny meme to take the edge off [Hidden link]
Risk analysis of ATOM2.0: [Hidden link] [Hidden link] - backup link
Initial incentive analysis of ATOM2.0 [Hidden link]
this is not a gov proposal but a signaling prop