On the Cosmos Hub, important decisions are not made behind closed doors. Software upgrades, parameter changes and spending from the community pool all go through on-chain governance, where ATOM stakers vote and the result is executed by the network itself. This article explains how a proposal moves from idea to decision and how you can take part.
Why On-Chain Governance?
Every blockchain has to change over time. In some networks, changes are coordinated informally between developers, miners and exchanges. Cosmos chains built with the Cosmos SDK include a governance module that formalises the process: proposals, deposits, votes and outcomes are all recorded on-chain and visible to anyone. Many upgrades are applied automatically once a proposal passes.
Types of Proposals
| Type | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Text (signalling) | Expresses the community’s opinion on an idea or direction |
| Parameter change | Adjusts network settings such as staking or governance parameters |
| Software upgrade | Schedules a new version of the chain at a specific block height |
| Community pool spend | Sends funds from the community pool to a project or team |
The Life of a Proposal
1. Discussion
Good proposals start off-chain. Authors publish a draft on the Cosmos forum, collect feedback and refine the text. Skipping this step is one of the most common reasons proposals fail.
2. Deposit Period
The proposal is submitted on-chain together with a deposit in ATOM. If the minimum deposit is not reached within the deposit period, the proposal is dropped. Deposits discourage spam: they are returned when a proposal passes or fails normally, but can be burned in certain cases, for example when a proposal is vetoed.
3. Voting Period
Once the deposit is complete, voting opens. On the Cosmos Hub the voting period lasts 14 days. Stakers can choose one of four options:
- Yes — support the proposal.
- No — oppose it.
- No with Veto — oppose it and signal that it is harmful or spam.
- Abstain — count towards quorum without taking a side.
4. Tally
When voting ends, the result is calculated with three main parameters:
| Parameter | Typical value | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Quorum | 40% | Minimum share of staked ATOM that must vote |
| Threshold | 50% | Share of Yes among non-abstaining votes needed to pass |
| Veto threshold | 33.4% | Share of No with Veto that rejects the proposal and burns the deposit |
Exact values are themselves governance parameters and can change over time.
Who Votes: Delegators and Validators
Voting power comes from staked ATOM. Validators vote with all the stake delegated to them, but any delegator can vote directly. When a delegator votes, their vote overrides the validator’s vote for their part of the stake. This is why it is worth checking how your validator votes — and voting yourself when you disagree. Our guide on choosing a validator covers governance participation as a selection criterion.
Notable Themes in Hub Governance
Over the years, Cosmos Hub proposals have covered software upgrades, changes to inflation and staking parameters, the launch of Interchain Security, community pool grants and broad discussions about the Hub’s role and the economics of ATOM. Debates can be intense: in October 2022, for example, the Cosmoscan explorer listed proposal #78, a signalling letter from community members about the Hub, as the latest proposal. Following such discussions is one of the best ways to understand where the ecosystem is heading.
How to Participate
- Stake ATOM with a wallet that supports governance, such as Keplr or Leap.
- Follow active proposals in our Governance section and on the Cosmos forum.
- Read the full proposal and the discussion before voting.
- Cast your vote before the voting period ends; you can change it while voting is open.
- Check the final result and, for upgrades, the block height when changes take effect.
“On-chain governance turns token holders into decision makers. A vote not cast is a vote delegated to someone else.”
Strengths and Weaknesses
- Strengths: transparency, clear rules, automatic execution of upgrades and a public record of every decision.
- Weaknesses: low turnout among small holders, concentration of voting power among large validators and the risk that complex proposals are decided on slogans rather than details.
Conclusion
Cosmos governance gives every staker a say in how the network evolves. Understanding the stages of a proposal, the tally rules and the relationship between delegators and validators helps you use that voice well. Read proposals, watch how your validator votes and take part — the future of the Hub is decided by the people who show up.