[PROPOSAL #47][ACCEPTED] Lower minimum proposal deposit amount

Proposal 47 Summary The current deposit amount of 512 ATOMs prohibits valuable governance activity from small holders or those with most of their ATOM staked. We propose lowering the requirement to 64 ATOMS. Objectives • Enable community members with good ideas but little capital to participate in governance and request resources from the community pool treasury. • Improve the governance UX for holders who keep most of their ATOM staked. • Increase utilisation of treasury (currently 666,457 ATOM, approximately $14 MM USD, at time of writing). • Accelerate Cosmos Hub development and growth. Background Current deposit is 512 ATOMs (approximately $10k USD today). The ATOM price when the community treasury was activated (2019-05-03) was $4.99 (source: CoinMarketCap), meaning the total required deposit to submit a proposal was $2,555. Today, most proposers must coordinate with large ATOM holders to request additional funds in order to meet the minimum deposit requirements. This also applies to large ATOM holders who want to be active in governance but do not have enough liquid ATOM to meet the deposit requirements, as staked ATOM cannot be used to post deposits.…

Excerpt (1194 of 3824 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Very excited to vote for this.

Great proposal! Atom has increased alot since the start and it makes sense to lower the deposit amount.

Makes a lot of sense given the price changes. I think with the more active governance we’ve been seeing and improvements in communication, lowering the threshold and managing appropriate submissions won’t be too big of an issue.

Thanks for getting this up!

Strong support for this. Curious why there’s 14M atom worth of votes for NoWithVeto - anyone who voted this way care to weigh in ?

Chorus One (ChorusOne)

I just want to emphasize that NoWithVeto exists in the governance as explicit representation of the fact that 1/3 validators can always censor txs to prevent a proposal from passing. So voting NoWithVeto effectively means “I would collude with other validators to censor txs to stop this proposal”. If +1/3 vote NoWithVeto, the deposits also get burned, which makes governance seem even more risky and inaccessible. The crowdfunding mechanism for deposits is great, but the risk of losing deposits from not getting quorum or from getting NoWithVeto is very real and a major deterrent to pushing proposals through. Those of us who have pushed proposals through know from experience from taking this risk. It’s one thing to vote No on this proposal if you think the current set of risks are acceptable (but if you’ve never made a proposal or a deposit, you don’t really know ) but it sends quite another message to vote NoWithVeto. Not to mention this proposal resets the USD cost of governance proposals (and the associated risk) back to where it was ~1 year ago and gives us plenty of breathing room for more ATOM price appreciation. We have a lot of governance activity ahead of us. We…

Excerpt (1196 of 1240 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Making the deposit amount to a level affordable is a realization of fairness.

Strongly support the proposal and voted for yes happily!!

We also support this proposal - if we end up getting inundated with spam or low quality proposals (like Terra), it’s easy to undo.

Meanwhile, it will remove an unnecessary barrier for governance participation.

We did not have a spam proposal issue when Cosmos was at <1$.

The high-stakes veto by Chorus seems unnecessary since the proposal itself is perfectly valid - nobody should lose their deposit over a non-malicious proposal.

Looks like Chorus switched their vote to No. Thanks!

Another possibility here if the vote does not pass (or if we need to increase the deposit again) is for a community spend proposal of a few k ATOMs to a multisig whose job is to support deposits for good proposals. That might give the best of all worlds and help alleviate the deposit burden using the Hub’s own funds!

This is also a good idea.

I wonder if the wording of the proposal triggered the 14M atom holder(s).
IMO , the “will exit network” part of the proposal seemed unnecessary.

There is nothing stopping them from voting no with veto , but still continue staying on the network.
Maybe this is their way of saying that?

Another far fetched theory would be an entity or group of entities from an adversarial chain accumulating atoms to disrupt the cosmos network ?