The Rise and Fall of Kusama Proposal #91
On October 25th, a groundbreaking proposal to split Kusama (KSM) tokens by 100x ignited fervent discussions across the global Polkadot community. Though ultimately rejected, this initiative shed light on pivotal governance dynamics within the Kusama network—Polkadot’s primary testbed for decentralized innovation.
Key Details of Proposal #91
The proposal outlined four critical changes:
- Total Supply Adjustment: Increase KSM supply from 10 million to 1 billion.
- Holder Allocation: Redistribute balances so 1 "old" KSM becomes 100 "new" KSMs.
- Unchanged Ownership: Holders retain identical network shares post-split.
- Precision Standardization: Adjust decimal precision from 12 to 10 places, aligning with Polkadot’s DOT rebranding.
The most contentious aspect? A 100-fold surge in circulating KSM tokens.
Voting Timeline: A Rollercoaster of Sentiment
- Early Stage (Oct 25–26): Minimal engagement—3,677 KSM voted "Yes," zero "No" votes. The proposal seemed destined to pass.
- Turning Point (Oct 26, 19:45 UTC): Votes skyrocketed—120,000 "Yes" and 6,100 "No" votes flipped the outcome toward rejection.
- Price Volatility: KSM’s value surged 40% (from $27 to $38 USD) amid heightened voting activity.
- Final Tally (Nov 2): Rejected with 390K "Yes" and 350K "No" votes.
Governance Mechanism: Kusama’s Super Majority Approval rule mandates overwhelming consensus, explaining why early leads dissolved under broader participation.
Implications of the Failed Proposal
1. Market Dynamics
Had it passed, the split could have mirrored Polkadot’s 2020 DOT 100x split, which spurred a 200% price rally. Historical data shows KSM and DOT often move symbiotically—e.g., DOT’s 60% post-split rise coincided with KSM’s 4x surge.
2. Parallel Chain Auctions
With Polkadot’s Parallel Chain 2.0 nearing launch, KSM’s governance experiment served as a stress test for future auction voting mechanisms.
3. Community Sentiment
The split’s failure underscored a misalignment between vocal proponents and silent majority preferences.
The Debate That Predicted the Outcome
Bruno Škvorc vs. ksmholder
In a pre-vote dialogue on kusama.polkassembly.io, Bruno Škvorc (Polkadot ecosystem expert) and ksmholder clashed over the split’s merit:
ksmholder’s Argument:
- "Kusama’s role as Polkadot’s canary network demands economic parity. Why use 10 KSM vs. 1,000 DOT for identical votes?"
- "Investor comparability suffers without uniform units."
Bruno’s Counter:
- "Changes invite confusion disproportionate to benefits."
- "Non-binding discussions ≠ consensus. Majority rules."
Conclusion: Bruno’s stance reflected broader hesitancy among KSM holders, foreshadowing the proposal’s fate.
FAQs: Addressing Community Curiosities
Q1: Why did KSM’s price spike during voting?
A1: Anticipation of scarcity effects (post-split) and speculative trading drove demand.
Q2: How does Kusama’s governance differ from Polkadot’s?
A2: Kusama employs faster, more adaptive voting thresholds (Super Majority Approval vs. Polkadot’s stricter referenda).
Q3: Could the proposal resurface?
A3: Yes, but only with stronger community backing and revised economic justifications.
Final Thoughts
👉 Explore Kusama’s latest governance initiatives
While Proposal #91 failed, it highlighted Kusama’s robust governance framework and the delicate balance between innovation and stability. For decentralized ecosystems, even rejected proposals pave the way for future refinements.
Key Takeaways:
- Token splits are double-edged swords—liquidity boosts vs. dilution fears.
- Community consensus remains the ultimate arbiter in decentralized governance.