Migrate Stride to opt-in PSS

Proposal

The Stride team proposes migrating Stride’s ICS configuration from a Top N (95%) Partial Set Security configuration to an opt-in model. Under this change, Stride would be secured by a small, proof-of-authority style validator set, relieving Hub validators of the obligation to run the chain. Stride already has 7 validators lined up for this.

Concretely, this is done through a MsgUpdateConsumer proposal that would set an explicit allowlist with the validators included in the set. Additionally, the consumer owner address would be updated from the Hub governance address to a multisig address controlled by the Stride Association.

Context

Stride was the second adopter of ICS, and the first chain to migrate from sovereign → ICS. At the time, ICS was the Hub’s main product, and Stride supported its development. However, ICS failed to find product-market fit, and Cosmos Labs has told us they plan to deprecate ICS in 2026.

The main issue with ICS is that validators must operate chains at a loss, because ICS revenue flows to stakers, not validators. Stride makes ~$400k revenue at current prices, 15% of which (~$60k) is paid to Cosmos Hub stakers. Validators earn their standard commission on this, usually between 5-10%. This ~$5-10k paid to ~100 validators is not enough to cover their operating costs.

The full migration requires a Cosmos Hub proposal (this one) and a Stride proposal, which will follow. The Hub proposal updates the consumer parameters via the Hub’s governance to transfer ownership of Stride’s ICS config to Stride Association, and specifies the set of seven validators that will form the proof of authority style set.

The second proposal, via Stride governance, will change the consumer parameters on Stride to send fees directly to the validators in the set.

The 7 validators Stride Association selected will each have ~14.2% vote power. These validators will register a fee address on Stride to receive rewards directly.

The 7 validators Stride Association selected are:

  • Imperator

  • Polkachu

  • Stakecito

  • Keplr

  • Cosmostation

  • Lavender.Five Nodes

  • Citadel.One

This is the first step towards migrating Stride to PoA, which is a model that dramatically decreases the security budget, while keeping security high in practice. After PSS is deprecated, the Stride Association team intends to continue using the 7 validators above to secure the chain.

Implementation

First, the consumer parameters will be updated via a MsgUpdateConsumer proposal. Specifically:

{
    ...
    "messages":[
       {
          "@type": "/interchain_security.ccv.provider.v1.MsgUpdateConsumer",
          "owner": "cosmos10d07y265gmmuvt4z0w9aw880jnsr700j6zn9kn",
          "consumerId": "1",
          "newOwnerAddress": "stride1fduug6m38gyuqt3wcgc2kcgr9nnte0n7ssn27e",
          "powerShapingParameters": {
            "topN": 0,
            "validatorsPowerCap": 1,
            "validatorSetCap": 7,
            "allowlist": [
               "cosmosvalcons1m7fg8k39k2tyym5hgwrpf5wx9hqsr8vywuyrtm", "cosmosvalcons1c5e86exd7jsyhcfqdejltdsagjfrvv8xv22368", "cosmosvalcons1pdpwglc4fcjdzqvyhvfwxg684trpc6uqck5sxk", "cosmosvalcons1px0zkz2cxvc6lh34uhafveea9jnaagckmrlsye", "cosmosvalcons1vz42ewp04wwepjed7z4qenj925gpakgvap4q2u", "cosmosvalcons1upc05nc9pwhhagnkr3f2dft327qxsxfeyvajsu", "cosmosvalcons1f6cjsfn47ujttypx7gtncglsmjvndugc2zelqx"
            ],
            "denylist": [],
            "minStake": 0,
            "allowInactiveVals": false
          },
       }
    ] }

The changes above are:

  • The owner address is changed from the Hub governance address to an address controlled by the Stride Association

  • The topN parameter is changed from 95% to 0%, which converts Stride into an opt-in chain

  • The validator set is configured explicitly with an allowlist and a cap on the number of validators in the set

  • The validator power cap is set to its minimum value of 1 to force each validator to have equal voting weight.

Once these parameters are updated, Stride will undergo an upgrade to:

  • Update the consumer redistribution fraction from 85% to 100%

  • Explicitly send fees to the validators in the set

After the passing of the parameter change on the Hub, and the upgrade on Stride, the migration will be complete.

Vote options

  • A YES vote on this proposal immediately migrates Stride’s PSS configuration to an opt-in model with a 7-validator set and transfers control of Stride’s ICS configuration from the Cosmos Hub governance module to a multisig controlled by the Stride Association.

  • A NO vote on this proposal signals disagreement with migrating Stride’s PSS configuration to an opt-in model and transferring control of Stride’s ICS configuration from the Cosmos Hub governance module to a multisig controlled by the Stride Association.

  • A NOWITHVETO vote on this proposal indicates a proposal either (1) is deemed to be spam, i.e. irrelevant to Cosmos Hub. (2) disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or (3) violates or encourages violation of the rules of engagement as currently set out by Cosmos Hub governance. If the number of ‘NoWithVeto’ votes is greater than a third of total votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.

  • ABSTAIN - You wish to contribute to quorum but you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal.

IMPORTANT NOTE FOR VALIDATORS: If you are a validator and you aren’t in Stride’s new set of 7, there’s nothing you have to do now. If this proposal passes and executes successfully, you can stop running Stride (for now, you must continue running Stride).

1 Like

As a person who sees messages like Why am I jailed constantly while my Cosmos validator works okay? from those who either don’t know how top-N chains work or gets into the top-95 VP without running a Stride node and realizing they have to now, this seems like a no-brainer, so 100% YES from me. PSS is way more intuitive here.

2 Likes

What happens with the LSM delegations once these proposals pass?

Are they redelegated and shared between these 7 validators only?

Just to clarify this is annual revenue? So, so far 15% of this was for all the Cosmos Hub stakers and validators running stride, and 85% for stride?

How were these validators selected? Shoudn’t the Cosmos Hub governance be involved in this selection given that Stride is currently a consumer chain of the Cosmos Hub and not just an unilateral decision by Stride?

So until now, Stride shared 15% of the revenue for all Cosmos Hub validators and stakers, around $60k, which was around $5k-10k to be shared amongst 100+ validators.

Do I understand it correctly that the plan now is to share all the $400k with just 7 validators, so around $57k per validator? Why Stride was giving only 15% of the revenue for all Cosmos Hub validators and stakers, and now so generous giving all $400k revenue to just 7 validators?

LSM is different from this proposal, this is about the validators running and securing the Stride chain. For liquid staking a larger and decentralized set is required and approved by Cosmos Hub governance for security and cannot be just a few validators unilateraly chosen by Stride

1 Like

How so? These LSM delegations are under their direct control and they can do whatever they want with them. I don’t quite see how or why the Hub should have any say in this.

No, they can’t. The current liquid staking set of validator was chosen and approved jointly by Stride and Cosmos Hub governance, any unilateral changes to that set by Stride would violate what was jointly approved by Stride and Cosmos Hub governance

This has nothing to do with Stride’s delegations. They’ll stay the same.

This is about which Hub validators run the Stride chain as part of partial-set security.

(1)

Annual revenue and yes, so far 15% has been allocated to the Cosmos Hub. This was discussed when Stride onboarded here.

(2)

The 7 validators are teams that Stride chose for their operational excellence, and who have worked closely with Stride in the past. Stride is going through a transition period, and having full trust and an existing working relationship with our partners helps.

The crux of this proposal is to migrate Stride off of PSS topN 95% to an opt-in chain - meaning no validators have to run Stride. That is the main decision Cosmos Hub governance has to make. After that, it’s up to Stride to find and recruit a validator set, it’s not the Cosmos Hub’s right or responsibility.

(3)

No, that’s not how it works. The 15% that was previously spread across the entire validator set will now be directed to the 7 validators.

2 Likes

Cool. Then submit the proposal and let’s get this over with.

Well maybe it should be, don’t you think??

You forced ~all Hub validators to validate Stride for years for ~0 reward.

Only cherry-picked ~30 validators benefited from all that through LSM delegations. Now you are choosing 90% of those same validators that benefited for years from work all other validators did to benefit from Stride profit sharing ON TOP of keeping LSM delegations to them.

What a joke.

2 Likes

It’d be best to stay on topic and focus on PSS. This proposal isn’t about how Stride does its delegations (which up to Stride governance). It’s about Stride’s PSS configuration.

Addressing your points briefly:

Stride didn’t force Hub validators to do anything. The Cosmos Hub decided to add ICS, onboarding Neutron, Stride, and others. Then, the Cosmos Hub voted to onboard Stride here.

You’re mistaken about how LSM delegations work. LSM delegations aren’t persistent, they rebalance frequently. LSM delegations go to a smaller set of validators because LSM validators must have a higher self-bond to accept the delegations. But the validators lose those delegations soon after they receive them, and they are distributed to the full set. LSM delegations aren’t a revenue source for validators.

But again, it’d be best to stay on topic and focus on PSS and the proposal at hand.

2 Likes

That is just not true.

Check here or any other source and sort by Stride delegations: https://analytics.smartstake.io/cosmos/lsm - the set with large Stride LSM delegations is VERY consistent with minor deviations, I have data points throughout years and I invite everybody to check for themselves. 6 out of 7 of those validators you picked for profit sharing are in this royal 30 set. A lot of validators with plenty of self-bond were never part of these ~30 validators, so that’s not true either.

Stride allows using other validators for LSM but then quickly rebelances to the cherry-picked 30 validators.

So it IS a revenue source through staking rewards for those 30 validators.

But whatever man, it’s your reputation, not mine, I don’t really care anymore.

At this point we’ll just be happy to stop being forced to validate Stride for no benefit and forget about it forever.

Ah I see what you mean - you’re just talking about Stride’s delegations in general, not the LSM delegations specifically.

It’s true that Stride delegates to 32 validators right now. We’re open to revisiting how delegations work - we have different methods across different chains - but it shouldn’t be bundled in with this.

As covered above, the reason for this proposal now is Cosmos Labs reached out to us asking us to migrate Stride to opt-in, because validators are complaining about operating costs.

This proposal is about Stride moving from topN 95% to opt-in (meaning no validator has to run Stride).

1 Like

This is off-topic but to clarify Stride didn’t ‘cherry pick’ any validators. Several metrics such as uptime, governance participation, and technical and community contributions were considered, then those validators with the highest scores were presented to both Stride and Cosmos Hub governance for voting, and both Stride and Cosmos Hub governance approved and selected those validators. But again this proposal is about PSS so let’s stay on the topic

Well, no offence, but I will believe it when I see it, you were “open to revisiting how delegations works” for years also - after being approached many-many times by multiple validators about it.

You were chosen to be part of the ~30, so it makes sense you defend it - validators were still cherry-picked - based on applications and it was indeed based on some criteria, yes - which makes sense, but applications were never open since (2 years+), so you had to be lucky to get in (on top of being competent) then and that was the only option.

On topic of this proposal - we support making validating Stride optional of course.

1 Like

How is measurable uptime metrics and governance participation cherry picking? All validators could apply and show their performance there was nothing about luck, and the best performers based on clear data were proposed for Stride and Cosmos Hub governance. But again, this proposal is about PSS, Stride already clarified that this has nothing to do with Stride’s delegations which was the initial concern of why that topic was mentioned

Fully support it! PSS is definitely a better option

1 Like

I think Stride is being generous with information here in identifying which validators have been selected, but the crux of this proposal is:

  1. Switch Stride to PSS so that no validators are required to run the chain (this is something many validators have been asking for already, quite frequently and with increasing urgency)
  2. Transfer Stride’s consumer chain admin address to a Stride-controlled address instead of governance. This is a no-brainer. Of course they should be controlling their own chain.

Anything beyond that is up to Stride, as it is their chain and their issue to negotiate with the validators who agree to keep running it.

Obvious YES from me.

3 Likes