What the rationale behind 25? Is there an estimate on block time change here?
I am leaning in favor of this proposal, but I have a couple asks/concerns:
-
Iād like to see this proposal (all proposals, in fact) outline the risks of adopting the proposal. What risk are we taking on? Why might we not want to do this? What could go wrong? Why should we consider voting ānoā?
-
Iād like to see this proposal (all proposals, in fact) outline the outcomes weāre hoping to achieve if this proposal is adopted and how weāre going to measure and when if we achieved said outcome. For instance, the rationale given is to diversify node ownership. Whoās to say the next 25 validator spots wonāt end up being taken by similarly large validators and not available to āmom and pop shopsā? Will this proposal achieve that outcome? Iām doubtful, but in favor regardless based on having seen the original whitepaper and other prior similar proposals so thank you for linking those.
This is outside the scope of this specific proposal, but Iād also like to see how and where this community follows up in general on previous proposals to see if we achieved the outcomes we were aiming for and why or why not. If anyone can point me to if/how this is done today, Iād appreciate it. Iām a new Cosmonaut, myself.
Thanks!
Actually, the last proposal only came out after 2 years after the one before that:
Technically if we are looking at increments of 25 seats year over year, we should be looking at 200 Seats right now.
But this is more about what the floor of entry is that is why adding 25 seats, for now, is good.
@marbar With respect to blocktimes there should be no increase from the data I have at hand (from external networks), Technically we could have 300 Seats and there should be no difference in blocktime.
The last two proposals that added validators were both only 25. Adding 50 might have a lower chance of passing. Once 25 are added and the community sees that all is well and that they have more choice in delegating ATOM, another proposal can always be presented to add another 25 or even another 50 active validators. Only adding 25 again is just baby steps.
Love your feedback. Thank you. The last part you mentioned about following up on past proposals to see how effective they were is something that can be addressed by current proposal 63: Mintscan - Chain explorer by COSMOSTATION and [PROPOSAL #63][ACCEPTED] Activate governance discussions on the Discourse forum using community pool funds
Hope you can help me understand this better
How is this going to prevent the top from getting money from institutional investors and decentralize the network? The small ones will still struggle unless they can offer something the big guys cannot.
Would it make more sense that rewards are given to the validators from 25-200? Small validators would then have incentive to ensure they are providing a great service, uptime, insurance, etc. to keep delegators and avoid being jailed.
Note: I just pulled the 25-200 our of the air some analysis would help.
1 Like
This proposal will do nothing to discourage institutional money from flowing into the space, but opens the door wider to competition. Maybe theyāre underdogs, but small shops can become medium sized validators. Donāt count us out.
And more equal distribution of voting power will strengthen the network.
This is keeping with the networkās eventual target of 300 active validators. From what Iāve read, 300 validators is the spot where network speed begins to decline.
We feel that adding 25 more active validators is a modest proposal.
Redistribution of rewards on the other hand is a slippery slope. Crypto is a free market. Perhaps a separate proposal for the Interchain Foundation to stake treasury funds with the bottom 1/3 or 1/2 of the active validator set?
As much as I respect cosmos devs and the original plan outlined in the whitepaper, governance trumps all of that. Thatās the purpose of governance- to decide what route the chain takes. Obviously there are good reasons for incrementally increasing the active validator set as well as capping the amount of validators, (and all of those should be outlined), but should governance choose to do it differently so be it.
Very much in favor of this proposal. Validating POS chains has been quite the money maker, especially during this last bull run. Unfortunately this brings in institutions (looking to fund validators as well as join in delegating), which consolidates a lot of voting power to the top 10 validators. And like you said, you see these same guys in the tops 10 for almost every cosmos ecosystem chain. Many of them are active members/contributors to the cosmos ecosystem, but this does go against some of the core principles I attribute to cryptocurrency. Like you guys, I grew interested in becoming a validator shortly after being introduced to cosmos, but quickly realized Iāve been priced out of all currently operating chains. I could try to get involved in a chain from genesis, but it would be a significant financial risk for me. Still something Iām considering/learning about, but I am pretty pessimistic about it ever coming to fruition.
I donāt see any downsides to increasing the active validator set. Consensus times should be negligible, and I think decentralization/dispersing voting power is more important anyway.
As a side note- I appreciate everything BlocksUnited does for the community. You guys are active in subreddits Iām involved in, and are always helpful, thoughtful, and informative. You take time to answer questions and help newcomers as well as share information about whatās going on in governance/general sentiment. I delegate to you and will continue doing so as I add new coins.
I would humbly request to at least following details should be provided with on chain proposal;
- What
- Why
- How (could be optional)
- And a brief of positive and negative impact
This is to ensure that documentation remains on the chain in far future and does not rely on external resources controlled by single entity.
Secondly, this would help educate community and provide them relatively better view therefore would be an educated decision while accepting or rejecting it.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a validator.
Gm.
Increasing the number of validators is a quick first step to the problem outlined but we should consider a mechanism that would rotate the active set. It seems this would be a more algorithmic way of achieving validator diversity.
Thanks for the feedback.
The OG validators gathered on March 30, 2022 to discuss this proposal 66
-Brian from Tendermint Inc, whoās 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 donāt want to share block rewards
Reasons for
-this proposal draws attention to the ecosystemās 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
We at Stakely created the proposal to increase the validator set to 150 back in September (proposal #54) and we support this proposal as well.
Adding 25 validator spots seems a reasonable amount, considering the time that passed since the last update and the capital required to enter into the active set.
Hey all!
We noticed that this proposal went on-chain with no text description aside from a link to this forum thread.
The top-level post has continued to evolve after the proposal went on-chain which means that people voting at different times might have referenced different information and be unsure of what the exact proposal description is.
Itās important that the exact proposal text be recorded at the time of going on-chain so that voters know exactly what their vote means at the time they cast it. Further information or discussion can continue in comments.
Going forward, we recommend pinning the text on IPFS as a lasting record of the final proposal text. For posterity, we pinned the text at the time of going on-chain 
Yikes! That was an honest oversight on our end. Can we add the forum text to the proposal?
No, there is no mechanism to change the text of a proposal once the transaction to submit it has been sent.
Thatās a total bummer and great learning experience.
Yeah, i heard those blockchain transactions are immutable. Hahaha.
can we at least make on-chain proposal titles more descriptive in the future? so vague. we can do better.