I just want to say I agree with this proposal and I think it hits the right balance. The way things are going right now, the biggest validators keep pulling in more and more stake, and it makes it harder for smaller ones to survive. That’s not healthy for the Hub long term.
What I like about this idea is that it doesn’t try to punish anyone, it just gives smaller validators a fairer shot while still keeping larger ones profitable. The progressive self-stake requirement also makes sense to me, because it means everyone has real skin in the game instead of just spinning up multiple validators.
That said, I’m expecting pushback. Some of the larger validators will probably either vote “no,” abstain, or try to drag things out to avoid quorum. That’s their interest, to keep the current system as it is. But delegators need to realize they don’t have to just sit back. Every one of us who stakes ATOM has the ability to vote, and if we want real decentralization, we can’t just leave it up to the top validators to decide for us.
As a delegator, I care about yield, but I care just as much about security and resilience. If this goes through, it makes me more confident the Hub won’t end up captured by a handful of players. That’s a win for everybody holding ATOM.