Thank you for the detailed response.
I think the arguments you’ve raised are valid, particularly regarding the importance of sequencing and having proper modeling before making a decision of this magnitude.
Based on your feedback, I’ll pause this proposal and wait for the results of Phase 2 of the ATOM tokenomics research, as suggested by Robo. It makes sense to revisit validator set size once we have stronger data and a broader understanding of the trade-offs involved.
I also appreciate you clarifying several points that were not widely known within the community. Having more transparency around the ongoing research helps everyone better understand where this discussion fits into the broader roadmap.
For now, let’s continue gathering feedback and refining the discussion so that, when the time comes, the community can make an informed decision based on data rather than assumptions.
Finally, thank you to the Hub Unit for taking the time to engage on what is clearly a very sensitive topic. In my opinion, validator sustainability, decentralization and the long-term structure of the validator set are among the most important subjects for the future of the Cosmos Hub, and I’m glad to see they’re being actively considered.