Thanks for this, siggars!
I’ve only been in the Cosmos ecosystem for about a year and don’t know all the ins-and-outs of how to use Mintscan, etc. I merely saw the aggregate and was completely flummoxed by the validator votes, especially as someone who has become so engrained in this community and the vocal support I had heard at a number of the governance meetings.
Either way, I appreciate the feedback. Always happy to learn more and grateful for you sharing! 
Hey Astrovault team,
I’m sharing why I voted No.
I don’t have any issues supporting adding liquidity for Astrovault, BUT:
Hey lehtu, although your comment is very late and you should have mentioned this before the voting ended, I will respond to you from my point of view as a community member
It was an offer by Astrovault, and it was possible for them not to offer it, as I had seen previously with projects that requested POL without offering anything in return, and proposals were passed, but Astrovault wanted to reward Archway community with a larger amount than what they wanted for POL.
No and why is that? I stake most of my ARCH with them, and of course all Astrovault users agree to the offer, so why don’t they vote yes on our behalf?
Of course it is possible, but since when has this LC been discussed and not resolved? How long should Astrovault wait?
Again, we are talking here about liquidity, not FUNDING. Liquidity will bring value to the network as a whole. It is a shame not to trust the primary DEX.
However, the voting ended and the validators were confused and the core team was not in agreement
Welcome to the forum. Been nice to have a lot of new accounts created and discussing, and thank you for the feedback.
I’m sorry it feels this way. It’s not, but we get it. We’ve felt like Archway feels entitled to our TGE. Astrovault didn’t get a TGE allocation in Archway, while alongside the Foundation and Phi Labs have been a top contributor to the ecosystem. This still wasn’t tokens for the Astrovault team, but the DAO… to be used to further build out the ecosystem as liquidity… once again helping. Again, we really didn’t think this was contentious, but oh well.
Ya, this is a lot of feedback we ended up getting. Perhaps you’re right. Our concern is that we had not yet set up governance for our derivative contracts. We could’ve set that up manually, but it would be rushed. The majority of our ‘delegations’ come from xARCH, which is owned by AXV which overwhelmingly supported the prop, and AiB who actually showed up to the governance call to voice support for Astrovault and this prop. So were they all to vote independently, our validator has very little weight, as we’ve mentioned, and will clearly show as governance is rolled out. But as for ‘letting the community decide’, I think it’s pretty clear that the actual community supported this proposal.
No. It can’t. Other deals can be. But we’re being asked to spend twice on something not owned. We have no guarantees. There are other legal risks. It’s much slower. It raises AXV net inflation. And even then, the liquidity council was literally not established to handle any such deals. I won’t bore you with the details of how liquidity deals have been set up… but we have concerns as to the sustainable duration of the liquidity we’ve attracted, and as we’re not major stake holders in ARCH ourselves (despite being a top 3 contributing team), there’s not much we can do about it.
Thanks for looking into this.
So these airdrop farmers think that spending “negligible” and “teeny” amounts will game an airdrop, however, that would not work out well for them and would just be a waste of time as those would be ignored, that is, if we ran the airdrop, but the running of it was offered to Archway as requested. Anyway, those votes did not factor into the outcome of the vote.
However, and more interesting, would be your analysis skills to the last 24 hours of voting at the other end of the scale, aside from those insignificant “teenie” amounts, what about the largest amounts? I’d genuinely love to hear your analysis there too.
It could be seen as disingenuous IF there was lacking trust in whoever gives out the Airdrop. However, it was agreed on that the Airdrop was to be given to Archway to deliver. Some might lean towards a yes vote because of it, however, I do not feel a cynicism that people vote yes because of it, indeed, the entirety of the prop would be taken into consideration by most.
The aim of this initiative was to deliver to the network and as many folk as possible something positive. Limiting what is given to people limits the overall appeal to participate in governance. A tool like an Airdrop is a legit attraction to draw people into what they would ordinarily feel is not for them. This could really have been seen as an opportunity for wider marketing and to showcase Archway
Thanks for the replies, I think this addresses also @BEngEE and @axs comments.
Thanks Eric,
Sorry, my first language is not English, so I don’t always pick the right words, and disingenuous was probably too strong of a word.
My point was that if you want to give Archway ecosystem an Airdrop, that’s great, but in my opinion, it should not be tied to any kind of “exchange” of things. 
Yes, it probably didn’t make a huge difference, but still, in my opinion, validators should abstain since not all people who stake vote on the governance or really care about Archway.
Thank you for the clarification; as I said, this was not a deal breaker for me (I was just wondering).
I want to support Astrovault as I think you are really valuable to this ecosystem.
This is not the point. I was responding to @Phunky
This is the story astrovault repeatedly telling everyone, but is not true. In reality, most of the 800 accounts originated from a single individual who manipulated the initial Archway airdrop.
Most of the 800 votes are a single individual, not a community. This is my point. Look at the links, the chain will show you clearly.
The narrative of overwhelming community support they are pushing is fabricated. Astrovault seems indifferent to the truth, reminiscent of the days of Hydro.
@siggars, are you intentionally spreading false information? The Secret Foundation was never involved in giving or monitoring grants. If you’re referring to SCRT Labs, which is where the grant process lies, they never evaluated the codebase. It was never “such a mess.” I helped code the unit tests, and did extensive UI/UX and frontend testing and I can tell you that the quality of the Astrovault team’s code is top-notch.
The Astrovault team is pretty brilliant. From the ground-breaking innovation that is Astrovault, to the smart contract development and the DEX itself. In fact, they’ve broken new ground in terms of the user experience for a DEX and what it means to means engage in DeFi with the complexities abstracted so it’s easier to use and more of a seamless experience.
There was no “pulling of the plug,” rather it was a breakdown in the agreement between SCRT Labs and the Hydro Finance team. Then came SecretSwap 2.0 and that didn’t work out, but that was a different team (StakeEasy). This stuff happens in crypto–it’s not always an intentional rug.
Again, this is just not true.
I couldn’t disagree more on trusting liquidity funds to this team. Crafting a deal where it helps Astrovault and Archway, where the funds would not be owned by the team, offering an airdrop to help reward community members, and saying that the Archway Foundation could control it …
To my knowledge, the Phi Labs team has a link to the Astrovault Github. Do you think they would promote Astrovault as the first DEX for Archway, if they hadn’t seen the code? The Phi Labs team even helped with the UI/UX design. It’s not like they have no idea of the underlying code and how the DEX works. These two teams collaborated–in the hopes of having a great launch with key Dapps for the success of the network and to demonstrate the use case of revenue going to builders.
The Astrovault team have worked tirelessly, making Archway their home, supporting Phi Labs and the community wherever and whenever they could. Sincerely wanting to help both their team and the Archway community by boosting liquidity, and all of the good stuff that comes from that. Eric specifically worked with Phi Labs on their tokenomics and helped architect the Liquidity Council, hosting the Arch In calls and more. If that kind of person, that kind of team, isn’t trustworthy, I don’t know who is.
@lehtu, you said you may have chosen the wrong word due to your first language not being English, but you did choose this word. What other word did you mean? Disingenuous means:
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
How is stating the details of the proposal in all of its terms, including an airdrop, not candid or sincere? Are you implying there is an under-handed motivation with respect to including an airdrop? If so, what do you suggest that is? On the surface, it incentivizes participation in the Astrovault DEX which in turn benefits both AXV and the ARCH tokens. Doesn’t the addition of ARCH liquidity also benefit the Archway community?
I don’t think Eric or the team have ever pretended that Astrovault isn’t a business. In fact, they acknowledge that and also talk about the synergies they openly and actively pursue with the communities and protocols they support. As a matter of fact, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find another DEX that thinks of the protocols and projects they work with as “clients,” and strive for mutually-beneficial relationships as much as these guys.
And I would argue that the various Cosmos chains and Dapps, heck all of Web3 really, are businesses with communities. Everyone involved, from Phi Labs as founders, validators, builders and community members are in it together, wanting this endeavor to be successful, in all the ways that means. We aren’t here just for the tech on Archway. We believe that builders should be compensated for their efforts, as should the validators and founders. And community members should be rewarded for supporting and participating in the fruits of those labors.
People might vote Yes because of it.
Clearly, this did not influence the outcome of the proposal. It wouldn’t have passed, and in fact failed, because of the power behind the validator votes. I don’t think we’re in danger of tons of people voting Yes due to an airdrop, overwhelming the power of the validators, Phi Labs and other large ARCH token holders. That’s the reality of where the governance power lies. It’s quite evident that’s what happened here as:
Why should Astrovault abstain from voting when their community and stakers are in favor of it? Isn’t that what validators are supposed to do–to represent the will of their community and the good of the network? In cases where those two are different, I would expect the validator to vote for the good of the network, but I don’t think there’s a conflict here. How is increased ARCH liqudity on the network’s premiere DEX not good for the Archway network?
Full Disclosure: I am a Secret Network genesis validator, Jackal Protocol validator, contributor to the Astrovault team (and others). I know them. They are honorable, and they have a high degree of integrity.
Disappointed this proposal didn’t pass as it is a shining star in the Archway ecosystem and may not fair well for future projects that trying to think about where to land.
If this proposal goes up again, Figment Capital will be voting “Yes” with our tokens. We will also vote “Yes” to any future proposals that alter the proposal in a way that brings more liquidity on-chain and creates a flywheel effect that attracts more developers to learn from Astroport.
Investing time and resources to build on a new network is a huge risk when it’s less risky to build on established networks with active users. Astroport took the road less traveled and hoped to attract new users and developers to the network
We should find a way to support the teams building in the ecosystem. The ARCH token holders would have benefited from the airdrop and effectively owned a percentage of POL in perpetuity.
Excited to share that we’ve found a path forward here! The POL / Airdrop swap with Astrovault will indeed happen.
This prop was a wild one! A bold concept from the start, it quickly sparked a lively community discussion and eventually the biggest on-chain voting turnout yet (by far!). No doubt that this engaged the community like never before.
There was clearly a ton of support for the prop, but also some concerns raised (see the spirited back/forth above 
).
Given the degree and intensity of community support, we wanted to see if we could address the specific concerns in order to move it forward.
Here’s where we landed and how it’ll be structured:
$500k in ARCH contributed to POL on Astrovault
Astrovault will contribute a matching amount of AXV to be airdropped back to the Archway community
For the contributed ARCH, there will also be some assurances put in place:
The ARCH is not to be sold, but strictly utilized as POL on Astrovault
All of the ARCH will remain on Archway, not sent to any other chains
Astrovault will abide by a 3.5% validator cap, delegating any excess to other validators
Note: we’re actively working to balance the network so ALL validators are within the 3.5% threshold.
We’re psyched to figure out a win-win compromise here as it increases POL to Astrovault, improves overall liquidity, provides assurances on the contributed ARCH, creates an awesome AXV airdrop opportunity for the Archway community, and deepens alignment between Archway and Astrovault. 
Stoked that we got this deal done, and were able to solve most of the concerns and issues that arose from a decentralized ask! Definitely think this was the best route forward, and hope that the community has enjoyed, and will continue to enjoy, the growth of Astrovault and the Archway Ecosystem!
That’s awesome news!