Nullify proposal 75

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…

Excerpt (1197 of 1587 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hey – yeah, as a not-self-proclaimed proceduralist I see where you’re coming from about the confusion of assigning non-standard vote options. I think people definitely shouldn’t assign non-standard vote options.

My proposed solution here would be:

• I think it makes the most sense to only define voting outcomes, not voting options. Ie, “if this proposal passes, xyz will occur” or “if this proposal is rejected, nothing will happen”
  • In this way, don’t even need to define most voting options
• I still see the NWV being problematic though without the amended definition (is that why the prop was raised in the first place?)
  • It is not actually possible to enforce any definition, definitions are only frameworks for thinking about the options. Ultimately, people will do what they want. I think that’s what you were getting at with only defining yes and sticking to SDK definitions.
• I don’t see much voting documentation in the SDK docs, is there more somewhere?

Rebuttal Against Nullification of Prop 75 Your criticism argues that Prop 75 is unnecessary because the community can interpret the vote options effectively, and the software documentation already defines them well. However, the purpose of Prop 75 was to provide a clear, consensus-driven definition of ‘NoWithVeto’ to ensure consistent understanding and application across the Cosmos Hub community. This is particularly important given the various interpretations of ‘NoWithVeto’ identified in the proposal. Below are my responses to your specific criticisms of Prop 75: • Difficulty in defining spam: Prop 75 acknowledges that defining spam can be challenging. But its intent was also to provide a clear definition of ‘NoWithVeto’ that encompasses other aspects beyond just spam, such as disproportionately infringing on minority interests and violating the rules of engagement. • Freeing authors from writing vote options: While it is true that vote options are defined in the software, Prop 75 is focused on clarifying the meaning of ‘NoWithVeto’ to prevent confusion or misuse. This clarification improves the overall governance process, ensuring that all community members have…

Excerpt (1197 of 4587 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’m not so active on the Cosmos Hub forum, but this thread got my attention.

The reason prop #75 was ratified was because the usage of the NwV option was more or less abused, without a clear expectation from the total community when this should be used. I think having a definition is a must-have, to avoid having a lot of people using the vote option without a more-or-less boxed understanding of what it means.

I would rather propose not to nullify the prop #75, but to amend if it is needed.

It opens the door to pointless proceduralism. I am saying that under the new regime, veto will just mean veto and there’s no way to abuse it.

But when to use the Veto option?

I remember the time when we had fierce discussions on when someone needed to vote with a Veto, which is why prop #75 started in the first place.

I always find it funny that in crypto the narrative is “we don’t need procedures and such, because that is so web2”.

But in the meantime it is forgotten that procedures are also there to stimulate predicatability, stability and more. Procedures are not a problem in general, but offers much needed guiderails to avoid ending up in endless discussions on what we need to vote and why.
I rather have some very good procedures on places where they matter (like setting clear definitions) over endless discussions. Since in the latter always the one who shouts the hardest gets the most done, and that is really not where we should be going to.

jacobgadikian: It opens the door to pointless proceduralism. I am saying that under the new regime, veto will just mean veto and there’s no way to abuse it. Clarifying the Purpose and Logic of Prop 75 I want to address your comment regarding Prop 75, where you claim it opens the door to pointless proceduralism and that the “veto will just mean veto” without any room for abuse under the new regime. First, it is crucial to understand that Prop 75 was designed to provide a clear and coherent definition for the ‘NoWithVeto’ option. By establishing a shared understanding of its meaning, the community aims to facilitate more effective communication, decision-making, and ultimately, a more efficient governance process. Your comment, asserting that under the new regime, the veto will simply mean veto and there’s no way to abuse it, inadvertently supports the very purpose of Prop 75. By defining ‘NoWithVeto’ more explicitly, the community can ensure that this voting option is used responsibly and constructively rather than as a means to disrupt or manipulate the governance process. The statement “A veto will just mean veto” highlights the very necessity of Prop 75. The…

Excerpt (1196 of 2789 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Whenever you want to use the veto option.

I like how @CML phrases it, directly above your message.

This comment of yours exactly shows why we need a definition; it will just be chaos again. We already see discussions about the use of NwV, even with a definition. It will be way worse without, because guidelines will be missing.

If this goes on chain; I will certainly vote “No” or even veto this proposal, since it only throws back the Hub, not helping it forwards.

Just want for the veto function to be used as defined in software, not restricted.

Additionally, under the current veto terms, well, guess what? You would be breaking proposal 75 to veto this.

Voting options
We propose the following definition for ‘NoWithVeto’:

“A ‘NoWithVeto’ vote indicates a proposal either (1) is deemed to be spam, i.e., irrelevant to Cosmos Hub, (2) disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or (3) violates or encourages violation of the rules of engagement as currently set out by Cosmos Hub governance.”

Your vote on this proposal indicates the following:

YES - You agree with the definition of ‘NoWithVeto’ established in this proposal.
NO - You disagree with the definition of ‘NoWithVeto’ established in this proposal. Please indicate why in the .
NO WITH VETO - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If the number of ‘NoWithVeto’ votes is greater than a third of total votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.
ABSTAIN - You wish to contribute to quorum but you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal.

Here’s the tweet for those who are inclined to discuss on twitter:

Jacob Gadikian

I think it’s also important to think about the newcomers to Cosmos governance. Sure it can seem very rote and redundant to explain what each option means but it makes the governance process more accessible overall. There were a lot of discussions and explicit confusion from involved community members about what NWV meant, now imagine if you’re just trying to get your feet wet? I do feel that it’s important to make sure we don’t bloat the governance process with needless procedure but prop 75 seemed necessary therefore we’re not in favor of nullifying prop 75.

No one follows proposal 75

“No one follows proposal 75” Distinguishing between opinion and fact is not “Optional.” Your assertion that “No one follows proposal 75” seems to stem from personal opinion rather than concrete data or evidence. Such a claim without adequate support merely reflects individual bias. To claim that no one follows Prop 75, it’s necessary to substantiate this assertion with evidence or data showing that most community members do not adhere to the proposal’s guidelines. Lacking this evidence, the statement remains nothing more than an opinion rather than a fact. Why should your opinion be given any greater weight than that of the full Cosmos community as a whole? Acknowledging the logical failure of your statement is necessary because it’s a biased generalization. This fallacy occurs when you draw a broad conclusion based on limited sample size, inadequate evidence, insufficient research, and/or presenting a biased viewpoint. You commit this fallacy “by asserting that no one follows Prop 75” without providing any single thread of evidence, resulting in a false conclusion. To contribute to a constructive and informed discussion within the community, it would be more effective…

Excerpt (1199 of 1785 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

yo you’re chatgpt or care too much

How about staying on topic and just responding to the points presented in my posts? That would be a much more productive use of time. You have not provided any credible information, data, or responses. If your position is correct, then you should be able to support it with factual information.

Well, you sound human now, so sure.

OK, so the reality is that no one follows prop 75, best illustrated by informal systems having a 2 hour long podcast about the hub and prop 791, then claiming that it was spam/unrelated.

So I just prefer that it works how the software specifies.

Does this make sense?

jacobgadikian: OK, so the reality is that no one follows prop 75, best illustrated by informal systems having a 2 hour long podcast about the hub and prop 791, then claiming that it was spam/unrelated. So I just prefer that it works how the software specifies. Does this make sense? Your claim that the specific example cited from an “Informal Systems Podcast” discussing Prop 791 proves that “nobody adheres to Prop 75” is a logical error. It is a generalization, where the conclusion is drawn based on a single instance, rather than a representative sample or sufficient evidence. The fact that an Informal Systems Podcast discussed Prop 791 and claimed it was spam/unrelated does not indicate that the entire community disregards or fails to apply Prop 75. An opinion expressed in a podcast does not provide a direct connection with how community members utilize the “No with Veto” option when voting. To make a convincing case, you need to present actual aggregated data showing that the majority of the community consistently does not follow Prop 75. Relying on a single example does not prove a trend or represent the broader behavior of the community. Moreover, even if…

Excerpt (1196 of 3112 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

?

Really sir, I don’t get your objection

the code always works how it is built and vote options should reflect that. I don’t see this having a meaningful outcome on any gov decision, because right now, validators already use the veto as it is programmed, not as 75 dictates.

You’re asking for data on fleshy human matters, and this isn’t possible. Can you provide data in support of 75?

respectfully,

-Jacob

jacobgadikian:

You’re asking for data on fleshy human matters, and this isn’t possible. Can you provide data in support of 75?

As the presumed author of Prop #796, the responsibility lies with you to provide evidence for why Prop 75 should be nullified, not with those who support its continuation.

One compelling piece of evidence in favor of Prop 75 is the fact that the community passed it. The proposition’s language clearly conveys its purpose and rationale, highlighting the community’s intent behind its adoption.

If there are no significant differences between nullifying Prop 75 and adhering to “the code definition of veto” then please clarify your understanding of “A veto will just mean veto,” as I have previously addressed the circular logic and ambiguity surrounding this statement.

If there are indeed no substantial differences, then Prop 75’s existence should have no impact on the status quo, and nullifying it is unnecessary.

In the event that Prop 75 is nullified, what specific definition would replace the current interpretation of the veto? This information is essential for a transparent and informed discussion within the community.

I’m sorry there’s a massive difference. The code defines veto very clearly. Proposal 75 does not.

This is a surprise =)

I was the first and the only one fully against 75 and any definitions for the votes. Everyone was pro the prop. Oh well, the irony…

[PROPOSAL #75][ACCEPTED] Establishing a definition of NoWithVeto Signaling/Text

There is one rather large topic I really do not seem to understand when I come across props like this one. I do understand the importance of having stigmas (no pun intended). They often help us, humans, to put things in place without having the trouble of opening up a huge airplane-pilot-help style guide to check what is what. But… there is always a but. Having these stigmas isn’t a good thing. It hasn’t led humanity into any prosperity. Having laws or the institution of law, which seems to con…

I will be pro any proposal to nullify anything that has a resemblance of hard coding social definitions

Sorry I’m a little late here. I think you’re right, any definitions for governance vote meaning should match what the outcome of the code is, and also reflect any official documentation.

For reference, here is a clear, but broadly applicable definitions for the votes that were ratified on Evmos and seem to have done well. Every proposer can just copy & paste the following:

• Yes: indicates approval of the proposal in its current form.
• No: indicates disapproval of the proposal in its current form.
• Abstain: indicates that the voter is impartial to the outcome of the proposal.
• NoWithVeto: indicates stronger opposition to the proposal than simply voting No. If the number of NoWithVeto votes is greater than a third of total votes excluding Abstain votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.

Interchain Explorer by Cosmostation

Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks.

Informal will be standing by our original prop 75 vote and will be voting no to prop 796.

ZadiGadi, why you do dis T_T

This prop is a clear NWV king.

Then what’s up with informals vote on 791?

I’m good as long as NWV is not indicated as a signal for exit.

I’m kind of interested in seeing unnecessary rules eliminated, and that’s why I’m interested in seeing 75 nullified.

I find that in regular human society, we have lots and lots of rules that generally get ignored and I think that we can genuinely do better.

So part of this is looking at our situation, looking at the rules that govern our situation, and eliminating rules that people simply don’t follow.

serejandmyself:

I was the first and the only one fully against 75 and any definitions for the votes. Everyone was pro the prop. Oh well, the irony…

Hey, I just wanted to say that basically, this proposal exists because I realized that you were right and at least speaking for notional, we were wrong.

jacobgadikian: I’m kind of interested in seeing unnecessary rules eliminated, and that’s why I’m interested in seeing 75 nullified. I find that in regular human society, we have lots and lots of rules that generally get ignored and I think that we can genuinely do better. So part of this is looking at our situation, looking at the rules that govern our situation, and eliminating rules that people simply don’t follow. In our ongoing discussion regarding the nullification of Prop 75, you have had ample opportunity to provide clarity on your claims and to address the questions raised. It is essential for you to support your stance with factual evidence and logical reasoning. However, up to this point, you have not effectively done so. In your latest comment, you now attempt to draw a parallel between “regular human society” and the Cosmos community. However, this analogy is not directly applicable to the matter at hand. Making a generalization about societal rules being ignored does not provide relevant evidence or context for how the Cosmos community has applied the “No With Veto” option in its governance process. Your conclusion, based on unrelated examples,…

Excerpt (1197 of 1653 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Let’s nullify it because no one follows it