Welcome to the forum! A couple recommendations on formatting your proposal to make it easier to read and clearer:
- The title should probably be in present tense “Increase the validator set of Cosmos Hub to 200 from 175” to indicate that it’s up for debate. Past tense “Increased” implies that we have already done it.
- A clear problem statement and proposed solution separate from the context. You’ve laid out an explanation of the whitepaper and Proposal #10 but the actual description of the proposal doesn’t clearly say that you want to change the set size.
- Correct false information - “also extended the active validator set size to 125, which still is the current network parameter.” is not true. I think you copied this from Proposal #54 but it’s no longer the case
Past discussions:
In March, just before Proposal #66 passed, the minimum stake to be in the active set was quote by BlocksUnited as 65,000 ATOM.
It has been roughly six months since then, and we saw the minimum stake drop to about $1000 for a short period as new validators joined the set, then it rose again.
Some relevant questions I think are worth exploring:
- Does the original Cosmos whitepaper stand the test of time as a good source for informing current design decisions about the Hub? It has been 3 years and the Hub has gone through enormous change. Is 13% per year with a cap of 300 still a sensible idea? Should we be increasing faster? Slower? Smaller? B I G G E R?
- Does increasing the validator set truly lower the minimum stake? Does the proposed change align with the stated goal?