Here, we'll try to collect our governance votes for all the blockchains we validate and more.

If you have a different opinion, vote, participate, and let us know :)

Table 1. Governance Votes

Proposal Date Our Vote Reason Result Autocritics/Reflection
1. Juno on Osmosis - Early pool incentives to mitigate slippage and boost liquidity. 2021-10-04 YES
*before joining as validator, however tx did not went through :(*
Liquidity is useful in order to bootstrap all users that want to onboard from the beginning and in order to allow people trading in or out from juno smoothly. Early adoption takes a very important role on this sector. Therefore we liked it that liquidity was coming from us as soon as possible. YES
3. Increase minimum commission rate to 5% 2021-10-07 NO
(before joining as validator)
Our reason was that we were thinking that juno would not immediately have the commission needs that Osmosis have. Watching at the Hub, it made sense to us to keep a 4% commission as a minimum threshold. This would allow also the highest Top10 players (which are are actually well covered) to accept delegations if somebody really liked their job. We know centralization can occur, but we don't want to limit somebody to stake with their favorite validator just because it's Top10. (e.g.: SG1 was at 3.75%) YES However in the aftermath, we are one of the zones with most of the IBC traffic, and also some serious hardware requirements to be holding. Therefore in order to avoid running at losses this prop was important.
4. Fixing Centralization From Gamed Stakedrop 2021-10-12 YES
(before joining as validator)
We voted YES in order to correct what we believe it was an optimal airdrop mechanism. Engagement and equal-feeling is important in all communities so thinking on the pros and the cons we went for the YES. NO-YES dilemma 11.03.2022 We wrote this: The whale was a good actor, redelegated to different validators and voted Abstain, letting the community decide. It honours them.
However on light of recent prop 16 maybe we were too much optimistic after first indagations. We would lean towards correcting the airdrop to what-it-should-be.
5. Increase Validator Set to 125 2021-10-31 YES At that point of time the threshold to enter the active set was 10.000 Junis, approx. We believe in decentralization and we would like to clear the entry barrier for newcomers. It was safe at the moment, and we have also an interest on checking the limits of IBC chains, therefore we voted YES, and we prepared to enter :D. YES Aftermath: Juno still works after 125 ^^
6. Governance Proposal to set maximum per block gas 2021-11-22 YES This is a good idea in order to limit the network against a single-superdemanding contract that takes us down ^^. YES
7. Community Spend Proposal for Liquidity Funding on JUNO/XKI Incentivized Pool 2021-11-24 NO At that moment of time there were 20 other tokens on osmosis, and incentivization could happen on each one. Juno's mission and Osmo mission are different. It makes no sense to provide liquidity towards a small centralized token at that moment of time (plus outside of juno). NO
8. Juno Moneta Upgrade 2021-12-09 YES Yes for sure, juno's mission started in Moneta. YES
9. Moneta Patch 2021-12-17 YES Yes for sure, juno's mission started in Moneta. YES
10. Juno Security Upgrade CWA-2021-003 2021-12-22 YES Yes for sure, juno's mission started in Moneta. YES
11. Juno - Keplr Wallet Native Integration 2022-01-10 YES We are happy to onboard Keplr on our team and put them on our best use. Some fellow community members commented on that he proposed services are pricey, we agree 100% (AND) Let's see it from the other side. Always good to remember: Let's avoid selling ourselves cheap. LFG. YES
12. Signaling proposal - JunoSwap DAO 2022-01-18 YES JunoSwap is great. No doubt here. Anything legit and built on Juno is good. Let's give also some love to our cosmwasm devs that are building something cool. YES
13. Proposal to adjust blocks per year param 2022-01-20 YES Thanks kingnodes for making this prop. This brings us back to our whitepaper/tokenomics params, so yes. YES
14. Interchain DEX liquidity kickstarter 2022-02-11 YES Same as 12: JunoSwap is great. No doubt here. Anything legit and built on Juno is good. Let's give also some love to our cosmwasm devs that are building something cool. YES
15. JunoSwap Signaling Proposal: Allow permissionless listing of bridged assets from Sifchain’s Peggy bridge 2022-02-23 NO (Friendly No) We encourage the communities to discuss listing (more complex) bridged assets, on the future Junoswap DAO ^^.. We are happy that Sifchain is prospecting the possibility to build on Juno but the right place to be asking is Junoswap, given that bridged assets pose their own risks, and they are not CW20 or native tokens. Also we are happy that the proposer(s) reconsidered their position and stated the error: @Sifchain. Quote. 9:49 PM · Feb 23, 2022 NO Thanks Tricky for discussing on discord Prop #15 subchannel, and also on Junoswap telegram, etc.
16. Correcting the gamed stakedrop 2022-03-10 YES We would like to respect the spirit of the initial stakedrop which capped whales at 50kAtom. The presence of a 50x whale which bypassed this convenience is an anomaly which should be corrected from the beginning. YES Thanks Jabbey for the investigations with onchain data.
17. Juno Lupercalia Phase 1 2022-03-29 YES We are ready for the update. YES Thanks every fellow validator that participated in this proposal and in the upcoming patches and recoveries.
18. Harmony Proposal to end FUD 2022-04-13 NO WITH VETO We would have prefered to see much more features from the Unity proposal into a potential compromise. Or just a rejection of the airdrop. Given that CCN runs a deposit btc > get atom & custody service (exchange de-facto), then CCN should have rejected the airdrop from the beginning.
(2/3)Giving away 50% of the airdrop makes evident the proposal never paid attention to Prop.16/Unity/Burn. E.g.: 50% of the funds could have been used in order to get a proper audit and kyc process so it is known in a more robust manner that the airdrop is fair. (Only a reputable third party kyc)
(3/3)Our particular interpretation on why veto, and not just no, is because this proposal did not consider any aspect of other, more accepted discussions as Unity or Remediation.
Proposal Date Our Vote Reason Result Autocritics/Reflection/Thanks
1. Agree to minimum validator commission of 5% 2021-12-24 YES
(before joining as validator)
Validators have running costs. YES
2. Chihuahua Community DAO 2022-01-12 YES Community is key. Opening doors to those that make it happen. YES Thanks Community DAO members
3. Upgrade to v1.1.1: Minimum Validator Commission 2022-01-13 YES A yes was needed in order to enforce the upgrade that allows the binary programmed in order to comply with Prop 1. (see Prop 1) YES Special thanks to Evan Forbes, Marko|Binary Holdings & Lydia|pomifer & the developer that made this possible.
4. Validator decentralization prize pool 2022-02-06 YES Thanks Lazuli for preparing the proposal and organizing, you are the best!.
[Commonwealth link to discussion]
From ourselves, we tried to help this proposal, once the text was ready, we were cheering up for some full node to submit the tx.
{ "title": "Validator decentralization prize pool", "description": "On January 31st 2022, Chihuahua validator Jabbey organized a giveaway event to incentivize and raise awareness of the importance of decentralizing delegations to validators. This event ends March 1st (which gives delegators with an address funded as of Feb. 1st Midnight UTC a month to complete the delegation requirements to qualify for the prize), and there is a prize pool address that can receive additional contributions. There is not just one winner for this prize; there could potentially be more than 2,000 addresses receiving a share of the prize pool. Please see the link below for the full details.\nThis proposal will authorize a 5,000,000 $HUAHUA contribution from the community pool to the prize pool address.\nBy contributing to this event, the Chihuahua Chain has a chance to use it's meme power as a way to raise awareness about how decentralizing validator power is essential to the health of every sovereign chain in the Cosmos ecosystem.\n\n_Link for details about the event:_\n \n_Prize pool address:_\n", "recipient": "chihuahua1vf2cwmapd77tsxewd04s66deu4t4jn5zf76lmw", "amount": "5000000000000uhuahua", "deposit": "1000000uhuahua" }
YES Thanks Lazuli!
5. Update Max Validators 2022-02-09 NO The community discussed very recently in Discord and Commonwealth about a possible increase to 105 and we'll be happy to go for it in short-mid term ^^. [Commonwealth link to discussion] YES Thanks everybody that participated on this :D. Thanks to, at the end we are stronger than at the beginning.
6. HUAHUA integration on 2022-02-11 NO (Friendly NO) Some of the questions are left open or unspecified. (effort of implementation, budget, roadmap, some ToDo, milestones, etc...)
[Commonwealth link to discussion]
YES Thanks ECOstake for the proactive approach on trying to address this!
7. Make Coney Daddy an Official AdHUAisor to Chihuahua 2022-03-08 YES Yes. He seems to be friendly.
8. Passage x Chihuahua Proposal 2022-03-11 YES Yes, connecting gaming industry with our dog money. Win win.
9. 2022-03- YES Yes
10. 2022-03- YES Yes,
11. 2022-03- YES Yes
12. 2022-03- NO Yes
13. 2022-03- YES Yes

Creative Commons License
Author: @windpowerstake. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..