Community Oversight Member Elections: Meet the Candidates

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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,