Clarifying Requirements for Validators --- ATOM is the only acceptable form of payment for transaction fees on the CosmosHub Chain

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.

ah, ok. for the technical side, I have no idea.

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.

For what it is worth, I agree. staked ATOM can not be used in a transaction or as fee for transactions.

I realize slashing and jailing binance is no small ask here. But it is not okay. Millions of ATOM are going to be effected. but the message it sends is clear. no one is above the rules as a validator. SG-1 is top 5 also… also stride only delegated to top 10 validators on each change. This is another reason this problem can be worse. Take the stAToM as fee and keep the actual ATOM too. it’s giving nothing essentially and keeping an ATOM. I wonder if this has something to do with the large gap starting to grow between stTOKEN and TOKEN value on Osmosis for Stride back liquid staked asset tokens.

I think you have made your point clear here in this forum and also on the discord. Whether it is picked up or not, this is too be seen. That is not in our hands.

They have my entire proposal for a hub proposal and discussion flagged by a bot as SPAM. Someone from community just needs to look and unflag it. Then I will submit through governance. @lexa

tag moderator @lexa , Maybe she can/will/will not look into it and can/ can not unspam the original message. Dont know how that works tbh.

The original just took 4 hours to write and 20 hours of research. I’d rather not re-write it from scratch.

hahaha, I can imagine :rofl:

1 Like

@lexa would appreciate it.

btw, how you know stATOM is used for the transaction as fee? when you claim reward as I see in the link/tx you provided the fee is for as far as I can see deducted from the ATOM in your account which is not staked ATOM. It doesnt show up seperate in the transaction history but is settled in the overall transaction/payout to your account.

1 Like

(https://forum.cosmos.network/t/akismet-has-temporarily-hidden-your-post/9917):

Many delegators/Validators were joking and laughing about this in cosmos developers discord and just blowing it off and actively paying their fees with stATOM just to do it.

They have 1.8 million ATOM in their control. They do not think someone or any of us with 280 ATOM can do anything about it. That’s what happened to LUNA I pulled out at $12 in February 2021

They think it’s no big deal and everyone will just get a little dust from it as reward

@Psinn @RobbStack

That’s the IBC token stATOM from STRD

Again this is all detailed and explained and philosophically explained why this is an existential problem when interchain security goes live.

But it’s in that post I need a moderator to unspamm

And in all fairness to the spam bot, it did request millions of delegated ATOMs to be slashed lol so I mean it’s understandable

Best part on blockchain is anyone can verify what im stating and everyone can see what’s happened

Hahaha, yes, that would make a bot pay attention :rofl:
Thx for clarifying. What I see is that the fee for the transaction was payed by the ATOM in your account. The IBC dust was added/extra reward that came with the claimed reward. stATOM is liquid staked on STRD. STRD gets 10% of the ATOM staking rewards of the underlying staked ATOM in unstaked ATOM.
Well, my knowledge is very limmited. I hope you get some more answers and if possible unspamming of your orriginal message. good luck :slight_smile:

@lexa My technical proposal is blocked by a spam bot if you’d be so kind as to review and override it

So ridiculous we let an AI spam bot stop anyone from reading actual crucial information. Guys I know that spamming is an issue but you can’t just take 12 day breaks between checking if the bot is correct

1 Like