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