Article zero for the constitution of atom

hello cosmonauts, Another attempt to push for a constitution for all and build by all. I dont have a group or team but it’s an honest attempt from a fellow beliver. I do have other ideas too but lets first build the basics. I would love to hear your ideas and lets improve on those. gist.github.com https://gist.github.com/Firetornado-git/5b160e8f86cc3523097dd82d3f4aa71b constitution.md ``` # constitution It is the continuation of the previous attempts (cosmos hub proposals 81, 82, and 83) to build a constitution. This process should include ideas from different ideologies rather than a few people. This attempt is to set up a basic structure to make the process more inclusive and representative as possible, taking into account the different backgrounds, beliefs, and opinions of all parties involved. The only downside of this is that it will take more time but, we are making an ecosystem that will be there after us, so let's be patient and build it with careful consideration. This proposal should be considered to pass only if it fulfills the conditions set in Article 0. ``` This file has been truncated. show original It is the…

Excerpt (1195 of 2271 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Any supermajority logic should be implemented in code, otherwise you’re going to cause a ton of confusion when a proposal “passes” but does not reach a supermajority.

Also doesn’t make sense to have all param proposals require a supermajority. Most recent proposal to increase deposit threshold is a great example of something that is working as is.

For the sake of progress I would say this proposal is only valid once implemented in the state machine and the Hub upgrades, and then remove item #2 to start. Individual params can be escalated to supermajority once the capability exists in the codebase.

hxrts:

Any supermajority logic should be implemented in code, otherwise you’re going to cause a ton of confusion when a proposal “passes” but does not reach a supermajority.

yes this should be implemented in code. Thats why i am putting it up for discussion.

hxrts:

Also doesn’t make sense to have all param proposals require a supermajority. Most recent proposal to increase deposit threshold is a great example of something that is working as is.

THis is my major concern. Increasing the deposit fee is excluding some people out of governance process and it should be allowed to pass only through super majority.

hxrts:

For the sake of progress I would say this proposal is only valid once implemented in the state machine and the Hub upgrades, and then remove item #2 to start. Individual params can be escalated to supermajority once the capability exists in the codebase.

This should pass as a whole thats way the voice of minority also carries some weight.
It’s not going to be a problem for normal updates unless people try to pass malicious things along with chain updates.

For me a go.

Note that it might be difficult to get a supermajority though, unless some massive things happen in terms of delegations.

A proposal like this wouldn’t have made the cut, because only 50% of the total staked ATOM has voted.

Mintscan

Interchain explorer and analytics powered by Cosmostation.

Or do you mean that more than 2/3 of the voted power should vote YES?
Because this line is confusing right now:

where more than 2/3rd of all staked ATOM voters vote YES, and the participation rate is above the current governance quorum minimum limit

If 2/3rd of all staked ATOM votes, then you would immediately go over the required participation rate as well

LeonoorsCryptoman:

Or do you mean that more than 2/3 of the voted power should vote YES?

i mean this but should have mentioned it in a more clear way.
thanks for the input