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.
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.
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 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.