Introduction
On this report, we analyze the affect of the primary wave of Web3 Basis’s Decentralized Voices (DV) program on the OpenGov panorama of Polkadot (major textual content) and Kusama (Appendix). Along with already out there metrics (hyperlink Dune), we make novel contributions in investigating the diploma to which delegate’s votes overlapped in addition to how voting energy (outlined in phrases of the Banzhaf energy index) distribution has modified with the DV program. Within the first half of the report, we analyze the turnout, voting conduct and settlement of DV delegates. After that, we zoom out and have a look in regards to the affect of the DV program on the voting energy distribution in OpenGov.
Remark
Our analyses reveal that the DV program has had a really constructive affect on OpenGov by amplifying the voices of delegates with numerous opinions and considerably contributing to a extra equitable distribution of voting energy.
What’s the Decentralized Voices program?
The Decentralized Voices program, initiated by the Web3 Basis, goals to boost the decentralization of Polkadot by decentralizing its governance. Within the first cohort, this program delegated 7x 1M DOT at 6x conviction on Polkadot and 6x 5k KSM at 6x conviction on Kusama, though the quantity of delegates has elevated to 10 on each Polkadot and Kusama for the second cohort. Within the first cohort, votes had been delegated on the 2 Tipper and three Spender tracks, though further tracks had been added for Cohort 2.
Remark
The key purpose for the Decentralized Voices is to permit passionate and educated contributors throughout the ecosystem to increase their delegations and affect governance selections. The overarching purpose of the DV program is to foster a extra inclusive and consultant decision-making course of throughout the Polkadot and Kusama networks, thereby strengthening the general decentralization of the platforms.
Who’re the delegates?
Delegates within the DV program are chosen primarily based on standards reminiscent of neighborhood involvement, previous voting exercise, and their potential to contribute positively to the ecosystem. The roster of delegates rotates each three months to make sure contemporary views and continued engagement. The first roster included ChaosDAO, Jimmy Tudeski, Kukabi, Polkadotters, Polkaworld, Saxemberg, and William. Delegates are entrusted with important voting energy and are anticipated to symbolize a various vary of views and pursuits throughout the Polkadot and Kusama communities. This structured method to delegate choice and rotation helps keep a dynamic and responsive governance framework.
Given the clear nature of the blockchain, we’re in a position to carefully observe the voting conduct of the DV delegates. For this evaluation, we incorporate information of Referenda 500 to 837 on Polkadot.
Turnout
In complete, there have been 326 referenda up for vote (of which 273 had been completed as of writing). ChaosDAO voted on nearly each referendum, whereas Kukabi and Saxemberg participated in >75% of referenda. On common, delegates voted in 67% of all completed referenda.
Voting Conduct
Polkaworld confirmed the best Aye share at 78.3% (on a comparatively small pattern dimension in comparison with different DVs), whereas ChaosDAO had the best Nay share at 45.5%. General, DVs voted in a reasonably balanced method, with common Aye/Nay shares at 53.9% and 35.4%, respectively. Kukabi and William have solid the best share of Abstain votes, at 18.6% and 26.8% of the time, respectively.
Settlement between DV Delegates
On this paragraph, we analyze what number of delegates agreed with different delegates of their votes. This metric compares every delegate pairwise and calculates a rating of settlement. In essence, if two voters all the time voted the identical method (and voted), then their rating can be 100%. If two voters all the time voted in another way (and voted), their rating can be 0%. Non-votes aren’t counted within the comparability. Since each delegate voted in a major quantity of referenda, every comparability consists of sufficient information factors to be significant. The diagonal (the settlement inside a delegate) is by definition 100% and, for instance that time, marked with “NA”.
The common settlement between delegates is ~69%.
Controversial Referenda
On this paragraph, we delve right into a subset of referenda. Beforehand, we thought of all referenda, together with people who had been clearly accepted (reminiscent of non-controversial runtime upgrades) or clearly rejected (like referenda with defective pre-images). These instances didn’t supply a lot perception into delegate opinions as a result of the outcomes had been clear-cut. Nonetheless, for a extra compelling evaluation, we now focus on the controversial referenda — these the place opinions different considerably. Particularly, we study referenda with over 20% approval regardless of being rejected or beneath 80% approval regardless of being accepted. Whereas there isn’t a agreed-upon definition of a controversial referendum, these numbers strike us as a considerable portion of voters disagreed with the ultimate final result. In accordance with this standards, we recognized 85 controversial referenda in complete. The following desk gives the full votes of DV delegates in these referenda.
Turnout
By focusing on controversial referenda solely, the general turnout will increase in comparison with the earlier numbers, indicating that some delegates thought of not voting in referenda that had been already clearly accepted or rejected.
Vote instructions
Whereas the final voting conduct of most delegates aligns with their patterns in all referenda, ChaosDAO stands out as extra essential in these controversial instances. Their share of Nay votes will increase considerably, reaching 71.1%.
Voter Alignment
In comparison with the voter alignment in all referenda, the place the common was increased, the alignment in controversial referenda has dropped to round 50%. This lower is sensible, provided that controversial referenda inherently contain extra disagreement. It’s constructive to see this anticipated divergence play out among the many delegates. This vibrant combine of opinions highlights how delegates are actively enriching the OpenGov panorama with their numerous views, making the method extra dynamic and consultant.
Voting Weight vs. Voting Energy
The easiest option to analyze voter affect is to check the quantity of (DOT) tokens or complete voting weights, with voting weights being the quantity of tokens occasions the conviction multiplier. This doesn’t, nonetheless, precisely symbolize the ability of a voter — take into account, for instance, the next state of affairs: complete token provide of 100, Alice has 49, Bob has 45, and Charlie has 6. A easy majority is required to win. Since every set of two voters achieves >51 of tokens to vote, all people’s energy is equal, regardless of their proportion holdings of the full token provide various tremendously.
On this evaluation, we use the Banzhaf energy index to research the ability buildings on the extremely energetic Medium and Huge Spender tracks on Polkadot and evaluate the state of affairs earlier than versus after the introduction of the Decentralized Voices program. Snapshots had been taken on January 8, 2024 (earlier than DV) and June 3, 2024 (after DV) with a 90-day lookback interval for voting extrinsics and aggregated to outline an voters, which encompasses all at the moment energetic OpenGov voters.
Medium Spender Monitor
Earlier than the DV program was launched, the ten strongest voters had been:
The prime 3 strongest voters on the medium spender origin had been 14DN… with a voting weight of 33.75M DOT and a voting energy of 0.208; 16DG… with a voting weight of 30M DOT and a voting energy of 0.173; and 14zP… with a voting weight of 18M DOT and a voting energy of 0.104. Because of this, for instance, 14DN… was required in 20.8% of all profitable coalitions throughout the Medium Spender voters of voting DOT holders.
The finest case for small voters (<0.1% of complete voting weight every) of forming a coalition collectively would result in a complete voting weight of 8.53M DOT and a ensuing voting energy of 0.044, occupying spot no. 7 within the prime 10 voters. General, the highest 10 voters would then maintain 77.7% of the full voting energy, with the remainder, which means medium-sized voters outdoors the highest 10, at 22.3%.
With the introduction of Decentralized Voices, the ability buildings modified significantly:
The complete voting weight on this observe elevated from 175M DOT to 274M DOT, highlighting strongly elevated participation by DOT holders past the 42M DOT in voting weight added by the DV program. 15Qu… is now the biggest voter, with 15.5% of the full weight and 17.4% voting energy. 15Qu… is separated from 16DG… by a single hop on-chain and thus presumably the identical entity. General, the ability construction is extra balanced: Whereas the highest 3 voters held nearly 50% of the voting energy earlier than the DV program, they now maintain about 37%. The Decentralized Voices are sitting at ca. 2.2% voting energy per DV delegate, or ca. 15.5% in complete.
Remark
Counsel edit
Voting Energy Distribution (Gini Coefficient and Lorenz Curve)
To realize a clearer understanding of the distribution of voting energy, we are able to use the Gini coefficient, a well-established measure of equality. The Gini coefficient, together with its graphical illustration by the Lorenz Curve, permits us to visualise how evenly voting energy is distributed amongst contributors. Basically, a decrease Gini coefficient signifies a extra equitable distribution of voting energy, suggesting that it’s unfold extra evenly throughout people. Conversely, the next Gini coefficient signifies better focus of voting energy within the palms of fewer people, highlighting inequality within the distribution. Traditionally, the gini coefficient is usually used to trace earnings or wealth inequality among the many inhabitants of international locations. Given a latest report of Credit score Suisse (2022), empirical observations vary from a minimal (best-case) of 0.51 to a most (worst-case) of 0.89. The world (weighted) common in 2022 was round 0.89, which is very unequal. With these numbers in thoughts, we are able to take a look at the Gini Coefficient of voting energy and its visible illustration, the Lorenz Curve. Right here, the cumulative share of voters is plotted in opposition to the cumulative share of voting energy. If voting energy was completely equally distributed to each voter, we’d observe a diagonal line. The bigger the “belly” is, i.e., deviates from the peerlessly diagonal, the bigger the inequality.
Within the determine above, we are able to clearly see that the Decentralized Voices program has had a major and constructive impact on the distribution of voting energy. It is because it created a counter-weight to beforehand very robust voters, which meant that their relative share of voting energy decreased and was redistributed to beforehand (nearly) non-existent voters. Moreover, it motivated extra DOT holders to take part in OpenGov, or to extend their conviction.
Huge Spender Monitor
On the Huge Spender observe, earlier than the introduction of DV, the next energy construction was current:
Within the absence of 14DN…, the following largest voter 16DG… held much more energy. On the Huge Spender observe, 16DG… held 34.7% of the full voting weight, however 40.7% of the voting energy. The subsequent largest voters, 14zP… and 16Zw…, had voting weights of 18M DOT and 12.6M DOT, respectively, however each had 14.6% of the voting energy — every of them was sufficient to realize ca. 50% of all voting weight along with 16DG…. The prime 5 voters held 83% of all voting energy.
In comparison with Medium Spender, the modifications within the energy construction after the introduction of Decentralized Voices had been even bigger on Huge Spender:
The complete voting weight elevated remarkably from 86M DOT to 362M DOT. Huge Spender has been a really energetic observe attracting excessive turnouts, reminiscent of on referendum 684 (Chainalysis) or 714 (Interlay). General, the ability construction on Huge Spender now appears properly distributed, with the highest 3 voters holding 28.6% of the voting energy (versus 70% earlier than the introduction of DVs). Decentralized Voices maintain about 1.7% voting energy every, or ca. 11.5% in complete.
The following determine plots the Lorenz Curve and states the respective Gini Coefficients.
Much more pronounced than on the medium spender observe, right here we see an enormous enchancment in phrases of voting energy distribution and voter participation.
Want for Change
Since April 2024, Polkadot’s OpenGov has launched a brand new observe labeled “Wish for Change.” This observe permits correct aggregation of DOT holders’ opinions utilizing OpenGov’s actual voting mechanism. Though the outcomes of these referenda don’t set off any instant on-chain actions, they function useful alerts for the neighborhood.
As a result of this observe was launched after the launch of the Decentralized Voices (DV) program, there was no delegation on this observe in wave 1. Thus, the evaluation doesn’t totally align with our focus on the affect of DV. Nonetheless, we nonetheless embrace this evaluation to know the present distribution on the observe. This serves as a helpful baseline for comparability with wave 2 of DV, when this system will delegate to this observe as properly.
The following graph plots the Lorenz Curve, illustrating the present distribution of voting energy on the “Wish for Change” observe. This preliminary evaluation will assist us later consider how wave 2 impacts the distribution.
Conclusion
The Decentralized Voices (DV) program has had a notably constructive affect on the OpenGov panorama of Polkadot and Kusama. The program has seen important voting turnout amongst delegates, with a mean participation charge of 67% throughout all completed referenda, and a few delegates like ChaosDAO taking part in almost each referendum. The presence of DV delegates has been particularly influential in controversial referenda, typically swaying outcomes in essential votes. The voting conduct amongst DV delegates is numerous, showcasing a balanced combine of Aye, Nay, and Abstain votes, which helps symbolize a broad spectrum of neighborhood opinions. Importantly, the introduction of the DV program has led to a extra equitable distribution of voting energy. Previous to this system, the highest three voters on the Medium Spender observe held almost 50% of the voting energy, a determine that has since decreased to about 37%. Equally, on the Huge Spender observe, the ability held by the highest three voters dropped from 70% to twenty-eight.6%. The complete voting weight on each tracks has additionally elevated considerably, highlighting better participation by DOT holders past the extra weight introduced in by the DV program.
Remark
Counsel edit
General, the initiative has enhanced the inclusivity and representativeness of the decision-making course of throughout the Polkadot and Kusama networks. The energy distribution has develop into extra balanced, as indicated by a considerably decrease Gini coefficient. Whereas the DV program has markedly improved the on-chain metrics for Polkadot’s OpenGov course of, you will need to acknowledge that off-chain discourse stays an important part of governance. Even smaller neighborhood members can affect bigger voters by considerate discussions and thorough analyses, underscoring the multifaceted nature of decentralized governance.
Kusama, Polkadot’s “canary network”, additionally had its personal model of the Decentralized Voices program. Because the quantity of Referenda is way smaller on Kusama, evaluation is rather more troublesome and values will probably be extra variable. For the sake of completeness, the info and restricted evaluation is included on this appendix.
Voting Conduct
Turnout
Complete quantity of referenda was 51.
Vote Path
Vote Alignment (solely controversial referenda)
Voting Energy
Medium Spender: PreDV
Medium Spender: PostDV
Medium Spender: Gini & Lorenz
On the Medium Spender observe on Kusama, voting energy has already been properly distributed between voters, as illustrated by the low Gini coefficient of 0.51. This stays true additionally after the introduction of Decentralized Voices, with a Gini coefficient of 0.55. Every DV had a voting energy of ca. 4%.
Huge Spender: PreDV
Huge Spender: PostDV
Huge Spender: Gini & Lorenz
Noteworthy for the Huge Spender observe on Kusama is particularly the a lot elevated voting weight, from ~1.0M KSM pre-DV to ~1.8M KSM post-DV, exceeding the 240k KSM voting weight added straight by the DV program. Chargeable for this enhance was largely the excessive turnout for referendum 377 (Subscan). As seen on the Medium Spender observe, the Gini coefficient is low each earlier than and after the introduction of DVs. Every DV had a voting energy of ca. 1.7%, similar to the voting energy of DVs on Polkadot’s (extremely contested) Huge Spender observe.
