First, thank you to everyone who has participated in this important conversation.
I understand that the current AADAO position encourages validators to vote for who they believe is the best candidate for the oversight role.
@Damien stated:
On the note of validators playing a large part in the elections, this is normal from our perspective and in line with the Hub’s governance traditions Validators play a large role in governance. Delegators (community members) chose a validator that aligns with their interests and goals. A validator has to vote on governance to represent their community.
Let’s explore this concept further:
- Aligning with Tradition: It’s true that validator voting aligns with the Hub’s governance history. However, it’s important to consider if this aligns with the community’s best interests moving forward.
- Beyond Consensus Voting Power: The current Cosmos SDK voting system reflects consensus power, but doesn’t necessarily reflect informed governance participation. Did you know that a jailed validator’s votes don’t count (together with all their stakers votes)? This highlights some limitations in the current model that only inherits from the original SDK design.
- Staking Motivations: While some stakers choose validators based on governance alignment, many prioritize:
- Security: Staking with larger validators for perceived security benefits.
- Reward Optimization: Choosing validators based on commission rates or additional rewards.
- Brand Recognition: Staking with familiar names like exchanges, influencers, wallets, etc.
These motivations highlight that the majority of stakers might not actively participate in governance.
Aligning Incentives for a Stronger Cosmos Hub:
Our shared goal is the success of ATOM and AADAO, ultimately leading to a thriving Cosmos Hub. To achieve this, we need an oversight member who truly represents the community.
While validators play a crucial role, they are primarily businesses with their own priorities, which may not always align with the community’s.
Introducing a New Perspective:
I previously proposed exploring alternative voting methods where only individual delegator votes are counted. This focuses on active community participation.
I have been told it would be difficult for people to understand, but I’ve taken the chance and developed a simple tool that demonstrates this concept, counting individual delegator votes and validators’ self-stake, whether the validator is jailed or not. This offers a more community-centric view of voting results.
I agree that we should not change the tallying formula now, but I’ll still conclude with a summary of the voting results extracted from my tool, 45 minutes ago. Units are staked ATOM (Voting Power).
Note: I apologize for any confusion caused by the formatting. My spreadsheet uses a European number format, where spaces separate thousands and commas separate decimals.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
arlai