[PROPOSAL 77][ACCEPTED] Fund incentives for the Interchain Security Incentivized testnet – Game of Chains – from the Community Pool

eazy YESH YESH! lovb dis :heart:


Happy to see the idea of compensating participants in this crucial testing and excited for the testnet to get started!! Lots of important work will be done during this time to make sure we are ready to bring this to the world.

Cosmos Spaces is ready to compete as well!

Looking at the success of the previous held “Game of XXXX” it would be weird to say we shouldn’t :slight_smile:

Small bit of voting power, but would happily support this one.

Unfortunately got delayed:


Will those who don’t participate be slashed?

I like what Billy says the other day. Putting validators through the ringer. We (ChainTools) have not pushed for the hub as of yet. Wondering if we can we participate in the testnet for some training so we are better prepped for 2.0? Cheers. Highlander

It still needs professional personnel to review. As a project willing to participate in ICS testing, I believe that it is already worth the trust, but it still needs to be reviewed.

Yes from Stakewolle Validator

Without a doubt - We’re a yes for this too at Simply Staking.

Chainflow supports this as well and looks forward to participating.

Questions and comments, related specifically to this proposal -

How will the 50% participation pool be awarded?

I’d suggest a fixed number of tokens per task be published along with the task schedule. This helps to align expectations at the outset.

If it was done this way, the total award pool would depend on the number of participants, unless the number of participants is capped.

If that were to be the case, I’d then wonder how the participants will be selected.

Right now it seems the pool would be split among an unknown number of validators for an unknown number of tasks. My sense is that this could lead to some confusion and possibly disappointment down the road, as has been experienced by some in past testnets.

We can potentially reduce this risk by following a structure similar to the one suggested above.

Separately, it would be great to see the testnet structure published as a separate proposal, to solicit community feedback. This would be a big step forward in Cosmos testnet evolution.