First and foremost, we’d like to commend @VelvetMilkman1 for the extensive effort put into crafting this post. The post is well-thought-out, well-written, and demonstrates a commendable focus on proposing thoughtful improvements, providing detailed rationale behind them. We appreciate this commitment to high-quality content and hope it sets a standard for the Hub.
Here, we offer our feedback on several key points:
1.1 Minimum Commission Fee for Cosmos Hub Validators
The 5% minimum validator fee has already been approved through an on-chain vote (referenced here: Mintscan). We align with the reasons presented and supported this proposal during the on-chain vote.
1.2 Dynamic Commission Adjustment with Consumer Chain Integration
- Incremental Minimum Commission Increase/Decrease: Your straightforward framework for addressing validator compensation complexities provides a solid foundation for discussion. Simplicity can be a baseline for further iteration, striking a balance between complexity and efficiency.
- Interim Period: While supporting the proposition, we recommend redirecting early-stage fees to the community pool rather than stakers. This would enhance effectiveness by preventing token fragmentation among small stakers and facilitate streamlined data assessment during the negotiation phase.
- Commission-Free Consumer Chain Rewards: We endorse this proposal and suggest incorporating it into a joint framework with the previous proposition to channel all interim period rewards to a dedicated covenant.
- Annual Reassessment Period: We find it appropriate to conduct yearly reviews of consumer chain agreements. With a significant increase in the number of chains, establishing a dedicated DAO for overseeing this process and submitting annual reports would be prudent.
1.3 Flexible Opt-in/Opt-out Mechanism for Validators in Replicated Security
We advocate for maximum flexibility, allowing validators to opt in or out based on their discretion. This approach maintains the security of consumer chains while regulating individual validator rewards through basic economics. The “soft opt-out” solution currently in place serves as a reasonable compromise until ICSv2 is implemented.
2. Governance and Process Standardization
2.1 Post-Interim Period Application Process for Consumer Chains
We fully support your proposition for a streamlined process for onboarding consumer chains, incorporating a generic 1% increased commission during the first-year interim period. The suggestion to reduce the minimum commission only if validators are equally compensated aligns well with our perspective.
2.2 Prioritizing and Developing Replicated Security v2 (or Partial Set Security)
We agree that V2 is essential, and an expedited development of V3 could offer a more durable solution with increased flexibility on the consumer chain’s side.
2.3 Funding Development of RS Monitoring Tools for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability
While transparency and accountability are crucial, we believe utilizing community funds for monitoring tools may not be necessary. Existing validators within the community have developed robust analytics compensated through delegation programs.
3. Community Engagement and Outreach (Loftier Goals)
We are committed to enhancing the Consumer/Provider relationship framework, supporting the creation of a streamlined onboarding process based on transparency, a data-driven approach, and periodic renegotiation.
4. Strategic Marketing and Ecosystem Growth (Loftier Goals)
Regarding Economic collaboration in the AEZ, we are developing a model to propose the creation of “Interchain Governors.” This specialized group would facilitate collaboration within and beyond the shared security area. Further details can be discussed (contact us at pro-delegators-validator-profile).
Conclusion:
In summary, we wholeheartedly support your recommendations. They align with our vision for a durable and flexible approach to managing the long-term relationship between the Hub and consumer chains. The proposal for a generic 1% increased minimum fee during each new chain’s onboarding is simple yet effective. Our suggestion to redirect all rewards during the interim period to a dedicated covenant contract aims to gather essential information for a data-driven negotiation. We also believe there’s a need for a new governing body, possibly a dedicated Interchain Security DAO, comprising individuals with diverse expertise. We are actively working on a framework for this purpose and would be happy to have your assistance on this matter if you want to contribute.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
