Thank you for your condescending behavior. I opt not to comment on your reply.
2 Likes
Thank you for your detailed explanation, and why you think it is not a good time. There are a few things I tend to differ respectfully. But I respect your opinion.
Thank you for acknowledging the engagement. One thing which is very certain in the whole conversation is I am NOT trying to get into an active set.
I am an opinionated person trying to learn the cosmos for my research.
2 Likes
Awesome – I’m nonetheless available for a call any time.
I’m glad to see you digging into core issues so rigorously.
2 Likes
I disagree with this. Joe Abbey and Architect Nodes are two validators that readily come to mind as having been missed by the icf delegation program.
The part I do disagree with is that life’s not fair.
To improve fairness, Notional has a delegations program, and will be making delegations to improve the quality of the cosmos hub validator set.
Will schedule a call with you, thankyou you for sharing the calendar. It is my honor.
1 Like
English is definitely not my main language, I am very sorry if you feel that way.
Perhaps you will find sweeter answers that add to the 1/ which I did not detailed on purpose cause it was pretty well debated here:
I think I did not clearly made my point in the last sentences, there is no harm wanting to join the validator set or having personnal interest nor that I did judge you at any moment.
With that said I think it’s too easy to pull that card whenever you don’t want to reply to someone. We are all here to learn something and I am the first one to ask to get challenged on my opinion.
@jacobgadikian Regarding ICF, I did oversimplify the traits and remove parts of my reply which would have made it too long. I do know there is politic involved and ofc their decision was biased.
If you want to strive as validators you either need connections with the right people with big bags/influence or you need to create only exposure to the regular cosmonaut that I am.
My point is Cosmos is an organised chaos.
Proof of it is their POV of fairness did not match yours, you will now try to establish a balance based on your own biases.
There is a balance to everything, at the end of the day some will loose some will strive.
@waqarmmirza going back to your arguments in favor of decentralization, you can surely add validators, it will only dillute the ‘weakest’, 25 new validators would be less than 1.5% of total VP. You are not balancing VP at all since it is already accumulated at the top. (top 14 having more than 50%VP currently).
Decentralization argument has been written on every single active validator set expension prop yet proven widdly false.
I recommend you to check out the other thread since some interesting ideas are thrown in the wild regarding decentralization and overall why expending the validator set ATM is a good/bad idea.
Once again sorry for offending you, that’s truely not my purpose
3 Likes
100%
100%
it’s going to be key to see how ICS plays out from a validator ops perspective. Our team will be open sourcing an orchestration solution, but not on day one. On day one, we will be doing everything manually, and then we will work on automation from there. Over and over about the ics rollout I keep thinking that we will need to do a good deal of “testing in prod” – and I’m actively okay with this, that attitude is part of why I love cosmos.
3 Likes
I’ve said my piece here and I feel heard for the most part. I will vote ‘no’ and encourage ‘no’ votes.
I’m working on publishing an essay (another, lexa? why can’t you tweet like everyone else) exploring the issue of stake decentralization on the Hub and why I think there is a better solution for supporting Hub validators than expanding the set (which does not seem to affect stake distribution in the long run).
“Too bad, life’s fair” is not how I want to phrase it, but I think someone in this thread said something to the effect of “You’re always going to know worthy validators in the inactive set” and that that’s not a good enough reason to expand it. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Increasing will make the bottom of the set even more competitive and we will always see good teams pushed out of the set by competition.
I want to focus my energy on making the set stable, not retaining its instability at a larger scale.
4 Likes
No problem mate, we are cool.
I don’t want to contest anything I am not sure 100% myself. I will choose not to make strong statements on the basis of historic data or on my gut feelings. (At the moment are; anything can not pass on the Hub if you are not from the 2 major Cosmos groups) I am not part of any of those groups, this is another reason not to contest.
Historically it is 100% true, the effects are negligible.
I have gone through it in the past, and this was the main reason I restrained from posting this on-chain last year. ( I assume you know the timeline, I initially proposed this on Sep 22, it had the support at that time, but based on the balanced arguments on the Dec 22 discussion I thought to wait a quarter)
1 Like
I would love to read your thoughts and learn more.
1 Like
For us increasing the active set will allow new stakeholder to bring contribution to the network, new ideas to appears and reward validators that participates to the ecosystem (who are currently inactive)
Also we think that the millions of $ of $ATOM that aren’t use will better serve the network in the active set to securing it whereas having them not use.
More, the block time shouldn’t increase as they still will have a poor voting power.
This being said, we are more down to increase the active set to 190 (not to 200) AFTER the coming of Replicated Security.
During that time other validators in the inactive set will have time to learn how to deal with ICS.
However, we think that being compliant and robust is the role of a professional validator, those who deserve to be in the active set should be able to run ICS chains successfully.
With 190 validators the active set will still have a huge barrier of entry but it will be more accessible for new stakeholder to enter.
2 Likes
For us increasing the active set will allow new stakeholder to bring contribution to the network, new ideas to appears and reward validators that participates to the ecosystem (who are currently inactive)
As said earlier, more validators does not brings more decentralization nor stakeholders/adoption.
Unless one of the validator is especially knowned in other chains and have a lot of community tractions the likeliness of new delegators is 0.
And that’s also part of the governance problem, new delegators are stuck to the top validators for delegations since they are mostly not educated and choose to pick ““the best””.
Ideas and Contributions are already free to flow:
-
For ideas: You have forums, servers, channels, social medias that are free to use to express yourself
-
For ‘Contributions’: Everything is open source (code), it’s your choice to delegate to inactive/active val
I am not seeing how expanding the active set will help/change any of that.
In a sense, assuming inactive validators are contributing to the network, I do agree that they should get a piece of the cake by having a validator running.
Also we think that the millions of $ of $ATOM that aren’t use will better serve the network in the active set to securing it whereas having them not use.
I strongly disagree, security of Cosmos comes from a balance of 2 things (spreads and valuation), you can’t assume bringing couple more millions will make it any more secure.
In fact last time I posted top 14 validators was 50%+ VP, with 25 more validators it would only take top 15 validators to keep that majority concentrated.
More, the block time shouldn’t increase as they still will have a poor voting power.
200 validators should not be a problem in that regard but you should know that block propagation also intervenes in the equation and if the propagation takes too long Tendermint will adapt and adjust blocktime (longer). It has nothing to do with VP (unless I am mistaken).
This topic was also discussed in the other thread with far more knowledgable people than me.
This being said, we are more down to increase the active set to 190 (not to 200) AFTER the coming of Replicated Security.
I do agree. IMO the lower at a time for now, the better because it brings less risks for a Neutron back-pedal (Less potential validators having financial stability issues). Right after ICS is IMO not a good idea, we should give it a couple month. Perhaps plan small bactches every months instead of big numbers at a time. This could also help future validators planning for action in advance since things would be set in stone.
During that time other validators in the inactive set will have time to learn how to deal with ICS.
I did not see any numbers yet, but I doubt even the most active validators experienced the testnet for neutron.
But I take it as a no argument, every validators should learn how to deal with ICS either they are active or not.
we think that being compliant and robust is the role of a professional validator, those who deserve to be in the active set should be able to run ICS chains successfully.
Could not agree more but this is not how things work in the Cosmos, only the amount of bounded tokens counts.
Hopefully I am not coming up as condescending this time 
2 Likes
Just published it here 
2 Likes
You can now see thinking together is better than thinking only with one person. That’s the reason why group of people in Community is very important. Sharing an idea together is great for our community members. I really appreciate you for ever supported.
Yes we need more discussion about this proposals. all the community should let me know what to do I need more ideas from you guys.
1 Like
Thankyou for sharing.
1 Like
I see that now with Neutron being live, the active set entrance level hasn’t dropped due to validators leaving the active set, it only was increased. Here’s how many tokens you need to get into the active set, for the last 60 days.
There were some drops (mostly due to validator not upgrading their node in time during an emergency upgrade on 8 May and for not running a Neutron node), but all of them were resolved quite quickly and all of these validators are now active.
So in my opinion, ICS didn’t influence the active set entrance level that much, despite it costing validators more to launch additional nodes, validators and it’s getting more difficult for new validators to join the set to help securing the network.
Moreover, when we got 8 jails of validators for not running a Neutron node, as I could see those new validators joining the set were signing blocks, meaning they were ready to join the set despite not being active currently, which can mean that there’s a desire from at least these validators to join, and likely there will be more to come.
Therefore I suggest to resume discussing the increasing of the active set. In my opinion though it would be more safe to submit a few proposals increasing the active set by 5 or 10 validators rather than making one proposal that would increase it by 25 validators instantly.
What do you all think?
(Disclaimer: I am one of the validators (Quokka Stake) that was kicked out of the active set due to this race for the last places for the active set, so I may be biased.)
3 Likes
i kinda foreseen this. i mean the fact that it would not be an issue. so as mentioned before i think its a great idea
1 Like
here is a revised proposition, because people are largely divided in increasing the valset, can we increase the valset by 10 and push it on-chain? It is not NVW I assume, and it gives a fair chance to this proposal.
I’m all in, and 10 seems way more safe than 25. Maybe even decreasing it to 5 and making another proposal to increase even further would even more safe, but both of them seem solid, as I am pretty sure that raising it to 25 would instantly drop the entrance level to around 1 ATOM.
Feel free to ping me if you need any assistance on actually submitting a proposal on chain or any other help is needed.
1 Like