[PROPOSAL #66][ACCEPTED] Increase Active Validator Spots To 175

Hub Proposals Parameter Change
1

As a joint initiative between Blocks United and Secure Secrets, we propose that Cosmos increase the number of active validator nodes from 150 to 175.

Summary
Smaller validators are being pushed out by large investors coming into the validator space and we believe that diversity of validator ownership is essential to decentralization.

When we (Blocks United) spun up our ATOM validator node in October 2021, the minimum number of tokens staked on the node to make it into the active set was only 45, or the equivalent of $1300. As of March 24, 2022 the minimum number of tokens staked on the node to make it into the active set is over 65,000 or around $1,885,000.

There are currently over 300 Cosmos nodes and only the top 150 earn block rewards. That 150 is the active set.

The largest validators are bringing in institutional money from places like JP Morgan and pushing the small validators out, and that is NOT good for decentralization. You notice the same large validators on so many chains.

Rationale
Diversity in node ownership is healthy and necessary. Allowing more validators into the active set allows the “mom and pop shops” to participate. This will give delegators more choice.

Precendent:
Originally, the validator set size in the Cosmos Hub was capped at 100, ordered by total delegated ATOM. The Cosmos whitepaper stated that the validator set size should increase 13% per year until it hits 300 validators as a cap.

Past proposal 10 raised the number of active validators from 100 to 125 nodes. View that here: [Proposal Draft] Increase Max Validators to 125
Past proposal 54 raised the number of active validators from 125 to 150 nodes. View that here: [Proposal] Increase Max Validator Set Size to 150

Remember, only ACTIVE validators earn block rewards.

The OG validators gathered on March 30, 2022 to discuss this proposal 66
-Brian from Tendermint Inc, who’s also on the board of the Interchain Foundation
-YouTuber Cryptocito (currently runs a Cosmos node)
-Mircea from Cephalapod (currently running relayers and validator nodes on 9 different networks)
-Dimi from StakeFish (currently running validator nodes on 25 different networks)
-Gavin from Figment (currently running validator nodes on 40 different networks)
-Naman from AssetMantle contributed toward the end of the call
-Listen to the call here: https://twitter.com/cosmoshub/status/1508837597237452807

Reasons against
-may slow block times, which is unlikely
-fundamental change to consensus could have unintended consequences
-inexperienced validators may lack the technical skills required
-large validators don’t want to share block rewards

Reasons for
-this proposal draws attention to the ecosystem’s core values
-will increase decentralization
-would drastically lower the barrier to entry
-will give lesser experienced validators the chance to learn technical skills
-if inexperienced validators lack the skills, more experienced validators will join and fill the spot and that evolution is healthy
-it will attract new stakeholders and more contributors are healthy for the ecosystem as a whole
-will increase the diversity of stakeholders
-more people earning equals more votes on how the network evolves
-more people involved and figuring stuff out is good for the ecosystem
-Dimi from StakeFish believes the network should open up more validator spots when the entry point is too high, $50,000 or more is required to be in the active set
-Stakefish knows potential validators who want to join

Governance votes
A “YES” vote will raise the current number of active validators from 150 to 175.
A “NO” vote will keep the current list of active validators at 150.
An “ABSTAIN” vote counts toward meeting quorum, but has no affect on adding validators.
A “NO WITH VETO” vote is for those who think this proposal was submitted with malicious intent.

Blocks United, Secure Secrets, Atlas Staking and many other small validators ask that you vote YES. This proposal is just one step closer to the eventual goal of 300 active validators earning block rewards.

VOTE USING KEPLR

VOTE USING BIG DIPPER AND LEDGER HERE (click the key on the top right)

COSMOSTATION VOTING TUTORIAL

VIEW THE ON CHAIN PROPOSAL

8 Likes
2

Hey BlocksUnited!

Thanks for taking the time to post your idea to the forum. Sounds like you’re interested in making a parameter change proposal, where you’ll increase the MaxValidators size from 150 to 175 in the staking subspace.

In general, we’re noticing that if you frame your post here as an idea for a proposal vs. an open discussion, it’s easier to get responses from other community members. If that’s something you want to do, let us know, and we can help with the following:

Let us know!

3

Yes, that would be wonderful. Please check out the changes and my tweet and provide any guidance that you think would help. Thanks!

4

We at Secure Secrets are looking for this as well, we have about $1.2 Million staked with us but fell out of active set. I think increasing the set is helpful.

2 Likes
5

How many validators does ATOM currently have and how would adding more work with Tendermint?

6

Great questions. There are over 300 nodes, but only the top 150 are validators that earn block rewards. More validators does mean increased time to come to consensus, which is why i suggested perhaps only 25 more ACTIVE nodes.

Another option is perhaps to incentivize delegators to stake with smaller validator nodes, but not sure how to accomplish that without becoming Polkadot or Harmony.

This discussion is definitely healthy though.

1 Like
7

I support this proposal 110% . Crypto was designed to be decentralized, imho to give us little guys the chance. Of course as more money flows in we loose some of that. But we have the chance to not allow these insutitutions control of this financial network for the first time and should act so accordingly. This is what cryptos about imho.
Im all for adding another 25 validators thanks for bringing this propsition to the table blocksunited

1 Like
8

How do we actually make this a proposal… to add 25 active validator spots?

9

Let us know what’s next steps to move this on-chain and share in social media so we can get exposure to this proposal.

1 Like
10

In terms of making and passing a proposal there are both social and technical things you’ll need to do.

Technically you will have to send a transaction that contains a json describing which parameter you want to change in which subspace. The Cosmos Hub documentation describes this process and you can also talk to other people who have submitted a proposal for help. The Hypha team who submitted Proposal 63 (including me) would be happy to help on the technical side.

Socially you’ll need buy-in and support from ATOM holders and delegators, since those are the votes that will be required to hit quorum and then pass the proposal itself. I’d recommend actively talking to other validators to get their advice and input on how you can refine the proposal into a form that would be most likely to pass. Once you feel you’ve garnered enough support you’ll be ready to send it on-chain. Some folks who run validators talked about this exact issue in Cryptocito’s recent Splitting ATOM show so you may wish to get in touch with them!

As you continue talking, gaining input, and refining your proposal I’d recommend editing your single top level post and keeping a change-log much like Proposal 63 so that when you’re ready to go on-chain you have the final form of your proposal text ready at hand.

Things you might want to add to your proposal text include rationale, benefits/drawbacks, details about what it would mean to vote YES/NO/VETO/ABSTAIN, and historical precedent such as similar past proposals (Proposal 10 and Proposal 54). Essentially any critical information a voter would need to understand the proposal and make a decision.

3 Likes
11

I made the mistake of starting a new proposal post this morning, instead of changing and adding to this one. I can’t figure out how to delete the post I made this morning. Will you give me a little guidance?

13

image
I think you should have access to this menu to delete a topic, but I can also do that for you as a moderator if you don’t have access!

14

I don’t have the wrench as a setting option. Yes, if you’d delete it for me that would be great.

15

Do you receive reply emails?

16

I don’t get emails but I keep the forum open all the time since I’m managing it right now. I believe you can adjust your notification settings in your personal preferences.

17

Changelog: March 25, 2022 the draft was changed to reflect an actual proposal, a clear summary, rationale, precedent and description of governance votes.

March 29, 2022 the draft was changed to voting period as we posted bond.

March 31, 2022 added:
VOTE USING KEPLR
VIEW THE ON CHAIN PROPOSAL

The OG validators gathered on March 30, 2022 to discuss this proposal 66
-Brian from Tendermint Inc, who’s also on the board of the Interchain Foundation
-YouTuber Cryptocito (currently runs a Cosmos node)
-Mircea from Cephalapod (currently running relayers and validator nodes on 9 different networks)
-Dimi from StakeFish (currently running validator nodes on 25 different networks)
-Gavin from Figment (currently running validator nodes on 40 different networks)
-Naman from AssetMantle contributed toward the end of the call
-Listen to the call here: https://twitter.com/cosmoshub/status/1508837597237452807

Reasons against
-may slow block times, which is unlikely
-fundamental change to consensus could have unintended consequences
-inexperienced validators may lack the technical skills required
-large validators don’t want to share block rewards

Reasons for
-this proposal draws attention to the ecosystem’s core values
-will increase decentralization
-would drastically lower the barrier to entry
-will give lesser experienced validators the chance to learn technical skills
-if inexperienced validators lack the skills, more experienced validators will join and fill the spot and that evolution is healthy
-it will attract new stakeholders and more contributors are healthy for the ecosystem as a whole
-will increase the diversity of stakeholders
-more people earning equals more votes on how the network evolves
-more people involved and figuring stuff out is good for the ecosystem
-Dimi from StakeFish believes the network should open up more validator spots when the entry point is too high, $50,000 or more is required to be in the active set
-Stakefish knows potential validators who want to join

April 2, 2022 added:
COSMOSTATION VOTING TUTORIAL and
VOTE USING BIG DIPPER AND LEDGER HERE (click the key on the top right)

18

We at stakefish are in favor of increasing the validator set allowing new validators to join. Let us know if you need any help

1 Like
19

That’s wonderful to hear. We hope to submit the proposal within the next 24 hours, so please vote yes and let the world know you voted yes. Thanks again!

20

Since we haven’t seen any opposition on this we will submit a proposal on-chain

21

Hi, my 5ct opinion here is that we should consider to add in the proposal that we should increase the Validator Set not before 1st of Sept 2022.
Proposal 54 ended 08/31/2021, to be aligned with the Cosmos whitepaper to increase per year.