Maybe this will not need a proposal formally presented through governance. Can a active validator and an active developer or someone from the Interchain Foundation please list the requirements of a transaction for a validator to approve it.
What are the detailed required specifics. I think I found a pretty major issue but maybe I don’t know the rules as well as you all do. To me what I’m looking at is common sense not a transaction that should get approved but multiple validators are doing the same thing. So I have come to learn not to argue or create controversy.
To create clarity as liquid staking is introduced broadly to the ecosystem.
What do you mean by ‘requirements’? Are you thinking ‘rules’ as in the technical requirements or the social norms? I’m not sure if this is a proposal (as in - something to go on chain through governance) or a request for clarification.
Technically speaking, ATOM is the only allowable fee token on the Hub right now. But I don’t think there’s any mandate or norm to keep it like that.
stAtom is being accepted by validators currently. please unspam my post that was flagged which has all the details links and a proposal to stop this or officially modify it.
It is dangerous what’s going on right now if the validators are approving transactions not paid in liquid ATOM unchecked. There is a long rant and citations about why this is bad and could threaten the idea of upcoming interchain sercurity implementation. stATOM is not ATOM, they cannot use a token that represents a staked delegated token as if it were liquid representation without converting back to ATOM. I have posted links to transactions and to payouts ive received from this practice. My proposal is one warning and clarification the slashing and jailing.
It’s too important the 4 billion dollar atom MC is not compromised using a 3 million dollar cap liquid staking protocol issued token in it’s place.
Maybe good to raise this issue on technical support on the Cosmos SDK, Cosmos Community Discord or Github SDK Discussion Board. I think you will receive quicker and more direct feedback/discussion on this topic there.
Guys I watched and screamed and yelled all through LUNA getting destroyed for profits. ATOM has to be held to the highest and most exacting standards. It’s soon to be the glue for all IBC chains that opt into interchain security. LUNA was it’s own sovereign problem. ATOM can take down an entire ecosystem if we attach other chains security directly to it
I think your initial post was flagged because the first times you post after signing up you dont have "link"right yet. those come with lvl ing up by contributing first. see “basic badge”.
I have now. but this was an emergency. This is easy to fix now, not if this is standard practice and the bull hits next week finally. i dont think anyone is nefarious here. just not thinking this through to its conclusion.
yes but the root cause is stATOM being distributed as rewards to delegators. The system has adjusted but that’s what cause the initial misunderstanding of reward value and amount.
stATom is not ATOM. I just want us all to agree to this. It allows for use as a staked token which is backed by a delegated atom. it cannot function as a liquid undelegated token as well.
i was wondering why