Governance Participation

Network
Proposal ID
Proposal
Explorer Link
Vote
Reason
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.
Osmosis 527 Upload Suitdrop Redeem Contract Link Yes LFG!
Osmosis 526 Allow Squid contracts to be uploaded Link Yes LFG!
Osmosis 525 Regular Incentive adjustment for 2023-06-05 Link Yes LFG!
Osmosis 524 Layerzero airdrop⚔ Link No With Veto LOL!
Osmosis 523 Signaling Proposal for WHALE/OSMO External Incentive Match Extension Link Yes LFG!
Osmosis 522 Liquid Staked Token Incentive Category Link Yes LFG!
Osmosis 521 Regular Incentive adjustment for 2023-05-29 Link Yes LFG!
Osmosis 520 Upload Alpine Pay Core Contract Link No We vote No based on technicality that this proposal does not have a 7-day discussion period on CommonWealth.
Osmosis 519 Alternative Signalling Proposal for use of ProtoRev Funds Link No We maintain the No vote despite the revision from Prop 516. There is only $50K in the wallet and people are discussing it on Commonwealth as if it is the biggest leverage in swaying Osmosis token price. We think that we should preserve the optionality of this pocket of funds for a future decision. When it gets bigger, we might be able to use it to do something more transformative for Osmosis.