Does increasing the number of validators to 180 from 175 make any difference. After all this is only 5%.
Chainflow will be voting yes to support the increase in the number of validators in the active set
is it to 180 from 175 or to 200 from 175 after all?
1 Like
At the moment I am writing it, the last active validator (175th place) has 113,288 ATOMs staked, while 180th (the latest to join active set if this passes) has 51,781 ATOMs. So this should drastically reduce the active set threshold (it will surely be increased later over time as more validators will try to join).
The proposal itself and its title/description has the active set of 180 validator, so increasing it by 5 spots. There was a typo I overlooked when updating the proposal text in the “Governance votes”, where it says 200 where it should have said 180.
As mentioned above Citizen Cosmos will vote YES. BTW, the essence of the prop looks a bit meh. I tried to explain what i mean here - imo its about building a fairer approach to decentralizing stake.
no. too soon. replicated security needs some stability. if i were mad, i would say proposer is irresponsible.
1 Like
Informal systems will be voting no. I think the set should eventually be increased to allow for more validator participation but do not believe this is the appropriate time. Replicated security is new and we should be focusing on ensuring smooth operations as more networks look to use ICS. New validators joining the set should be able to earn enough revenue to run a quality, secure validator, while still supporting ICS chains.
And I can only slow clap for your governance participation. this prop has been here for 8 months and you are participating now, with your decision. Calling Prosper mad. Wow.
Appreciate the stance, but I believe the arguments in favor are strong too.
New validators joining the set should be able to earn enough revenue to run a quality, secure validator, while still supporting ICS chains.
I can assure you that existing validators from 170 and minus in the rank, are working in loss and some are in big losses. And those validators try very very hard to maintain standards, often higher than those that earn. Its not about that for a lot of us
Adding to this: there should be a compromise between having a stable active set and allowing new validators to join.
As of now, the set is quite stable, but it’s quite impossible to get into the active set unless you have millions of tokens staked. So now it’s difficult to get into the active set even if you contribute a lot (two examples: myself, an ICF delegation recipient, and this delegation is not enough now to get into the active set; and Interbloc, guys who are doing really cool things but their efforts weren’t considered worthy enough to get themselves into the active set, but who could’ve joined if the barrier was lower).
As for myself, I consider the expansion for 25 more spots an overkill, and this might be indeed unsafe, but not expanding it greatly limits the validators who want to contribute and be a part of the active set. Just today we had another validator joining the active set and kicking out the last one, and now it costs around 4K ATOMs more to get active than it was before, and it’ll continue to be that way if there’s no expansion.
Therefore it seems to be that 5 spots expansion sounds like a nice compromise between having it safe and accessible for validators, and later, if this proposal passes, we can analyse if we (as the community) want to change it even further.
Adding to this. Not 170 down, 120 and down
The proposal that should be prioritized is that the Commission will be set at a minimum of 5% to ensure that each node has enough funds to operate.
Currently Commission is a free market, but there is no node operating cost protection mechanism at all.
1 Like
I agree, do we know any specific reason why was the last attempt to make 5% failed?
@jacobgadikian can you help, me understand that?
What do you mean when you say:
there is no node operating cost protection mechanism at all.
Seems that the operators are just that. In fact that is their direct task. They are that mechanism. Its a free market, it regulates itself, and it works superbly imo.
2 Likes
Can you please give a little more context on this?
I’m not sure what you mean here
If I remember correctly there was an attempt via gov to set minimum commission to 5%. Why did it fail? And do you support that if someone tries that again?
Okay, so the proposal has passed, thanks to all participating!
Just a few notes on what I think we need to consider later:
- we (as a community) should analyse how the active set would behave with this expansion
- it might be a nice idea to bootstrap a discussion about the further increase of the active set in a month or two (I do not think it’s reasonable to discuss it further earlier as we won’t have the overview on the active set changes and the desire of the new validators to join)
- as @catdotfish correctly pointed out on Discord validators channel, the change from expanding the active set by 5 spots instead of 25, as discussed in the first place, was done in a bit of a rush, and we should consider spending more time discussing it and getting more feedback from the validators.
Feel free to share your thoughts on the future of the active set here and whether you agree or disagree with my points.
Cheers!
1 Like
Some analytics from now, to compare it with what will happen in the future:
- this proposal caused the barrier for the active set to fall from 118,647 ATOMs to 70,566 ATOMs:
- if someone would want to proceed with increasing the active set by 5 more slots and it’ll pass, the barrier would drop to around 21,971 ATOMs
Let’s see how this would change in the next few months.
My personal opinion is that it’s way too early for another expansion right now, but that will probably change in the future.
1 Like