We have read most of the comments on this proposal. For those who are supporting this proposal, we think their motivations are good. We still voted “no” not because we have a different motivation. We also want to see a more productive governance. But we think in a completely different perspective regarding the definition of “productive”.

Deposit should NOT be paid only by the proposer

We understand the current deposit is a huge barrier. But we think this will actually help us to become more productive in governance as we have never thought that the deposit should be paid only by the proposer. Given this relatively large deposit amount, the proposers need to communicate more with the validators and atom hodlers so that more people will help to make the deposit.

Deposit = First Reading

The requirement of deposit has the similar function of the “first reading” in some legislative systems. If the proposer has gotten 10 or more validators or atom hodlers to support by sharing part of the deposit requirements, each of them only need to bear less than 50 atoms. With this communication effort, the proposal will have far higher chance to pass. This has actually increased the efficiency of the governance.

If the proposer thinks this is difficult to find this support or don’t want to spend this effort, we think the proposer should reconsider if its proposal should really enter voting period.

Lowering the barrier alone will not make the governance more productive

As we all know, the bandwidth of validators are very limited. Some CEX and VCs which are the largest validators have nearly never participated the governance. Furthermore, the remaining engaging validators have become less active than before due to the increasing workloads from other projects. Even now with 512 atom as deposit, most of the proposals were passed without much debate.

If we lower the deposit requirement, there will be more proposals enter voting period with a much weaker “First Reading” as mentioned above. We may see the number of proposals grow 5x or even 10x from the current level. This is unrealistic to think the remaining engaging validators will increase their bandwidth by the same increased amount of workload. Not to mention the fact that they are sharing the workload of those CEX and VC validators without extra compensations. Most validators may eventually become a rubber stamp and blindly follow leadership when deciding how to vote.

Our suggestions

Instead of lowering the deposit requirement, we should strengthen the off-chain communication. We think this is the reason why we have Cosmos Governance Workgroup. We may build a custom that proposer should first get enough support from some validators and atom hodlers so that they can share the deposit requirement.

This early endorsement can actually speed up the governance process.

A side note on “No With Veto”: this is an option

We fully support validators to vote based on their own judgement. While we voted “No”, we understand why some validators want to vote “No With Veto” to deliver a stronger stance. We believe we all want to build a censorship-resistant Cosmos. But the worst kind of censorship does not happen on chain. It happens off-chain: peer pressure which may make people to self-censor their expressions. We understand this so well because we come from a city of white terror. In fact, our “No” may be the result of self-censorship.

Kwun and Terence from Forbole