# \[LAST CALL\] CHIPs signaling phase : Validator Vote Power Cap **URL:** \ **Category:** CHIPs\ **Tags:** signaling-phase\ **Created:** [September 21, 2025, 4:55pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/last-call-chips-signaling-phase-validator-vote-power-cap/16204 "2025-09-21T16:55:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 16
**Author:** ![RoboMcGobo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/robomcgobo/32/5444_2.png) [@RoboMcGobo](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/RoboMcGobo)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2025, 2:10pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/last-call-chips-signaling-phase-validator-vote-power-cap/16204/16 "2025-10-08T14:10:12Z")
Respectfully the text you’ve quoted proves my point. Particularly the following: > [@Govmos](#): > > _has the unilateral authority to direct the voting, in the aggregate, of 20 percent or more of the outstanding voting power_ of such blockchain system by means of a related digital commodity, **nodes or validators,** a decentralized governance system, or otherwise, Onchain governance is interpreted quite broadly here, and most people familiar with governance outside of Cosmos (e.g., how Ethereum governance works) know that this is inclusive of node upgradeability to a designated binary. We’re not as used to that in Cosmos, but it’s absolutely applicable here. Again, I respect your right to put this on chain, but if you intend to do so I would strongly recommend setting a higher initial cap of at least 5%, which has the same effect of preventing a single party’s on-chain vote power from exceeding 20% while being far less likely to have unintended negative impacts on the overall governance of the chain. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/last-call-chips-signaling-phase-validator-vote-power-cap/16204)._