Cosmos Hub | Definition of Motion 75 NO with VETO

Cosmos Hub Proposal 75 was initiated by Lexa Michaelides, Mai Ishikawa Sutton, Sacha Saint-Leger, Sam Hart, and Udit Vira, hoping to discuss from the history of technology and community to clarify the true definition of NO with VETO. If the bill passes, the Cosmos Hub copy and forum will be updated to reflect the new definition.

In the new proposal, the definition of voting NO with VETO is:

1. Junk proposals, e.g. not related to Cosmos
2. Disproportionately violate minority interests
3. Violate or encourage violation of the governance rules established by the Cosmos Hub. The rules referred to include not only rules made through governance, but also decisions and agreements made between communities.

The calculation method of NO with VETO itself has not changed, that is, as long as the proposal reaches a quorum and more than 1/3 of the voting rights vote for NO with VETO, the proposal will be rejected and the deposit will be confiscated to the community pool.

Under these definitions, No with VETO is not a "stronger veto" nor a "call to quit", but a cost to spam proposals or proposals that have a significant negative impact by infringing minority interests or violating participation rules. The content of the entire proposal is like a paper-like discussion, and it is worth reading in detail if you have time.

Then baby, I found out that kin has said similar things before, hahaha!

Cosmos Hub series

Cosmos Hub | Is there an airdrop after Motion 65 is cast?
Cosmos Hub | Interchain Account The powerful functions of cross-chain accounts are beyond imagination
Cosmos Hub | Proposal 72 Introduces Liquid Staking and DeFi to Cosmos Hub with Interchain Security