Open Discussion: Suggestions for Axelar Governance

Hi all! Ian from Flipside Crypto here. We’ve been thinking about potential ways to improve the Axelar governance experience and wanted to post a couple suggestions that we believe may lead to better outcomes and higher participation from all members of the community.

This is not meant to be a formal proposal - just an open discussion that we think is important to have as a host of new EVM chains are expected to be supported over the coming months. Please feel free to push back on these ideas if you disagree! We’re all here to help this ecosystem prosper and grow, and there may be good reasons for maintaining the status quo.


1) Extend the standard voting period to 3 days

While the average turnout (looking at validator participation) has been trending upward recently, we still only see ~ 26 validators participating in a given vote. Further, we have noticed that several of the top validators have never voted on a proposal. While this is sometimes unavoidable, and while we recognize that not every validator has the time or resources required to keep up with the pace of voting, we believe that the community should strive for more active participation whenever possible. If some of the most seasoned operators in the space cannot regularly accommodate a 24 hr voting period, maybe we should consider increasing it.

In our experience, more time to make the decision and properly assess pros & cons = consistently better decisions.

2) Include a more detailed description of changes and desired outcomes in proposal details (or in the case of SoftwareUpgrade proposals, include a list of upgrade features / change log)

Most governance participants are passive YES voters if they participate at all. While this is useful in some contexts, it can also have seriously adverse consequences.

During the voting period for Proposal #22 (Axelar v0.28 Upgrade Proposal), we searched through the official documentation and also checked with a few other validators but were ultimately unable to determine

a) what was changing with the upgrade to v0.28 or
b) the intended outcomes of the upgrade.

While we took comfort in the fact that an announcement was made in the official Discord channel and the proposer (axelar-core-0 validator) had made similar proposals in the past, the fact that we didn’t fully understand what exactly was changing gave us pause.

Including a more detailed proposal description with a list of upgrade features as shown here for Osmosis Proposal #335 (Osmosis v12 Oxygen Upgrade) should become standard practice in our opinion.

Doing so would also give the community a chance to digest the new features and get excited about advancements in the underlying tech. See the Twitter thread from Emperor Osmo below for example.

While there may be valid security reasons for not publishing a full change log in advance, we believe that sharing more detailed information leads to better governance decisions and gives users more comfort and confidence in using the network.

Agree or disagree? Let’s chat!

1 Like

What you asking for is this bud? or some thing else.

1 Like

This is helpful - thank you.

But what I’m really suggesting is a simple description in layman’s terms. I think this should be standard practice for all proposals.