Governance Participation

Network
Proposal ID
Proposal
Explorer Link
Vote
Reason
Osmosis 533 Supercharged Incentives Model Link Yes LFG!
CosmosHub 801 Signalling Proposal - Gravity Dex Liquidity Module Removal Link Yes It makes sense to remove the dead code because Gravity Dex is not coming back.
Osmosis 531 Reset Community Pool allocation to 0 Link Yes LFG!
CosmosHub 799 On-board the Stride blockchain for ICS Link Yes We are excited to onboard Stride to ICS.
CosmosHub 800 Provide 450K ATOM to Stride’s stATOM liquidity pool Link Yes We are excited to onboard Stride to ICS. It is a great welcome gift to align interest.
Gravity 181 Compensation to cosmos holders Link No With Veto LOL!
Gravity 180 Fund development of auction module. Link Yes LFG!
Osmosis 530 Introduce a Protocol Taker Fee for Osmosis swaps Link Yes LFG!
Osmosis 529 Regular Incentive adjustment for 2023-06-12 Link Yes LFG!
Osmosis 528 Decide What's Shown on the Main Osmosis Website Link No We believe that on-chain governance should not and cannot dictate what frontend looks like. First, the appeal of web3 is that we all share the same database (the public ledger) while developers can permissionly innovate on frontend. If one frontend does not meet the user needs, it will be competed away by a better frontend. When users have diverse UI preferences, multiple frontends will emerge to meet the user needs. Second, because frontend is hosted off-chain, there is no meaningful way to enforce the governance decision on dev teams. It is social consensus all the way down. Therefore, such abstract proposal less effective than voting on specific tokens to be added through governance to signal the social consensus to various frontend teams.