# CHIPs discussion phase: Adding Utility to Validator-Bond

**URL:** <https://forum.cosmos.network/t/chips-discussion-phase-adding-utility-to-validator-bond/14268>\
**Category:** CHIPs\
**Tags:** discussion-phase\
**Created:** [August 14, 2024, 7:46am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/chips-discussion-phase-adding-utility-to-validator-bond/14268 "2024-08-14T07:46:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Govmos](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/govmos/32/5806_2.png) [@Govmos](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/Govmos)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2024, 6:13am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/chips-discussion-phase-adding-utility-to-validator-bond/14268/5 "2024-09-25T06:13:30Z")

</div>

> [@David\_Crosnest](#):
>
> If this risk is transferred primarily to the validator via its bond, the fundamental delegation mechanism could lose its relevance.

This is precisely why we proposed a system with adjustable parameters to strike the right balance. We also suggested starting with downtime slashing events only, as a test case. Another idea we support is to have the penalty only partially covered, ensuring that this remains entirely voluntary for validators. We still believe delegators should face slashing for validator misbehavior; however, offering an optional incentive mechanism tied to the validator bond presents a potentially valuable solution that warrants exploration.

> [@David\_Crosnest](#):
>
> Not only do they take on the operational responsibility of the node, but they also have to commit a sufficient amount of capital to cover potential losses, thereby increasing the entry costs for new validators. This could inhibit decentralization

We fully acknowledge this valid concern, and we agree it must be handled with great care. Fine-tuning the parameters is crucial. As referenced in @arlai-mk’s calculation, a 0.01% slashing event with a 100% fraction (which we do not necessarily recommend) would cost a validator like Crosnest nearly 13 ATOMs. This counters the argument that decentralization would be hampered. However, you’re absolutely right—careful adjustments are essential, particularly if this feature extends to more costly slashing events. We believe the idea of linking validator bonds is worth further consideration and in-depth discussion.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/chips-discussion-phase-adding-utility-to-validator-bond/14268)._