Injective’s official account says the Veyra upgrade got “yes votes from over 99% of INJ stakers.” I went on-chain and pulled the vote tally myself. That statement isn’t accurate—at least not literally.
Proposal 717, tally as of 19:31 tonight (UTC+8): 14.14 million yes, 7.34 million abstain, and just 80,000 no votes and vetoes combined. There are 56.12 million INJ staked across the network.
Where does the 99% come from? Yes votes ÷ (yes votes + no votes), excluding abstentions. That is indeed the standard Cosmos uses to determine whether a proposal passes, so the calculation is valid. But calling that “stakers” changes the meaning: yes votes account for only 65.6% of votes cast, and 25.2% of all staked INJ. Overall voter turnout was 38.4%, just 5 percentage points above the 33.4% quorum threshold.
Most of the 7.34 million abstentions came from the Kraken02 validator (about 5.3 million), with Twinstake and BitGo by Twinstake each contributing just over 1 million. It’s common on Cosmos chains for exchange and custodian validators not to take a position; validators staking on behalf of clients generally don’t choose sides for them. More than half of the staked INJ wasn’t counted at all: among the validators that didn’t vote were Injective Foundation 2 (about 4.54 million), Binance Staking, FalconX, and Figment. Under Cosmos rules, delegators who don’t vote follow their validator. If the validator doesn’t vote, those votes effectively don’t exist.
To be clear, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this upgrade. There were almost no no votes, so it will probably pass easily. I’m questioning the narrative: the reality is that roughly a quarter of staked INJ actively endorsed it, while the rest either abstained or stayed silent. The official spin turns that into “99% of people support it.” Governance votes are decided by a small number of large validators anyway—that’s normal. But don’t treat this as evidence of community consensus, much less as a reason to buy. The upgrade’s actual value will depend on whether institutional assets and fees really come on-chain after launch. Voter turnout can’t tell us that.
You can check the data yourself: Injective LCD’s gov/v1/proposals/717/tally. Voting ended November 17 at 00:53 (UTC+8).
#Injective #INJ
Proposal 717, tally as of 19:31 tonight (UTC+8): 14.14 million yes, 7.34 million abstain, and just 80,000 no votes and vetoes combined. There are 56.12 million INJ staked across the network.
Where does the 99% come from? Yes votes ÷ (yes votes + no votes), excluding abstentions. That is indeed the standard Cosmos uses to determine whether a proposal passes, so the calculation is valid. But calling that “stakers” changes the meaning: yes votes account for only 65.6% of votes cast, and 25.2% of all staked INJ. Overall voter turnout was 38.4%, just 5 percentage points above the 33.4% quorum threshold.
Most of the 7.34 million abstentions came from the Kraken02 validator (about 5.3 million), with Twinstake and BitGo by Twinstake each contributing just over 1 million. It’s common on Cosmos chains for exchange and custodian validators not to take a position; validators staking on behalf of clients generally don’t choose sides for them. More than half of the staked INJ wasn’t counted at all: among the validators that didn’t vote were Injective Foundation 2 (about 4.54 million), Binance Staking, FalconX, and Figment. Under Cosmos rules, delegators who don’t vote follow their validator. If the validator doesn’t vote, those votes effectively don’t exist.
To be clear, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this upgrade. There were almost no no votes, so it will probably pass easily. I’m questioning the narrative: the reality is that roughly a quarter of staked INJ actively endorsed it, while the rest either abstained or stayed silent. The official spin turns that into “99% of people support it.” Governance votes are decided by a small number of large validators anyway—that’s normal. But don’t treat this as evidence of community consensus, much less as a reason to buy. The upgrade’s actual value will depend on whether institutional assets and fees really come on-chain after launch. Voter turnout can’t tell us that.
You can check the data yourself: Injective LCD’s gov/v1/proposals/717/tally. Voting ended November 17 at 00:53 (UTC+8).
#Injective #INJ
