[PROPOSAL 797] [Passed] - Increase the validator set of cosmos hub to 180 from 175

Network speed is not the biggest issue. I have seen a rough guestimate somewhere about the impact being nearly negligible in terms of block times.

1 Like

With the increase of 25, it will add only a couple of ms to a block.

3 Likes

I really dont see any issues with increasing the set

2 Likes

Hey guys, I was wondering why Cosmos Hub has capped the number of Validators.

It would be nice to have unlimited Validators available at Cosmos Hub, so a large number of people could be Validators & security will be enhanced.

2 Likes

Would hugely appreciate the set increase that could give us a shot at reaching the set. Hope it passes if it makes it on chain. :). Highlander. ChainTools validator.

2 Likes

@lexa is there a good timing to get this in chain?

1 Like

I think It would be put on chain in the coming week

2 Likes

Timing is really what you make of it - socializing and promoting can be a lot of work but the idea itself has been around for so long that maybe this prop won’t be hard to promote :slight_smile:

As you’ve probably seen on the forum and Twitter, folks have a lot to think about with ATOM 2.0 and the Charter draft. It’s hard to predict whether that means people will be more engaged in governance and interested in voting vs so preoccupied with other work that this slips through the cracks.

If y’all feel confident in your ability to socialize it and encourage stakeholders to vote, I personally think it’s better to move the thought forwards and gain some momentum than let it idle.

3 Likes

Yeah, I think that in order for this prop to get the attention it deserves, we should not have it go live during voting for ATOM 2.0.

However, I do think the chain expansion is somewhat prudent right now since we are undergoing a new ICF delegation round soon. This would really maximize the opportunity for new validators to enter the set with the awarded delegation + minimal bootstrapping on their own.

Although the exact amount for each delegation is unknown… we can infer it using the info from the new delegation policy.

First, they plan to delegate at minimum 10.36 million ATOM (70% of 14.8million owned by ICF). Next, they plan to delegate ATOM based on the point policy they came up with (using the formula: total ATOM delegated by ICF divided by total points earned by all eligible validators).

There are 31 criteria total so assuming a validator hits each one, they can get up to 31 points each (this isn’t a hard cap, they can get more, but lets just simplify things here).

Assuming that 155 validators apply (since top 20 cannot), and each gets 31 points, that comes down to 4805 points total. We may have some validators who aren’t in the set apply, but that shouldn’t mess with the numbers too much. Based on these assumptions, each validator will be awarded ~2150 ATOM per point.

So even if a validator only gets 10 points, that’s a 21,500 ATOM delegation. Currently, that is not enough to get you into the active set. If we expand the chain in advance of the ICF delegations, it will likely make it easier for smaller teams to join the active set if they are able to secure a foundation delegation from the ICF.

All this said, I would love to help lead the charge in getting this on chain since we have discussed it at length now. Prior to doing so, I think it will be important to reach out to some of the large ATOM validators to seek their opinion. I would also like to include more data in the proposal itself so that people can understand why this is being proposed now instead of later.

1 Like

+1

I like your thoughts and putting multiple pieces of the puzzle together to create more than just 1+1=2.

Kudos.

And I am supporting your opinion as well. Expanding before the delegations hit is a good move.

1 Like

I agree with your thoughts,

But I don’t think a validator can apply against 31 points, if I am not mistaken validators only can apply against 1 point.

1 Like

A validator can earn at least 1 point for each of the criteria listed. At least that is how the ICF policy currently reads (unless I misread it).

1 Like

Hello all and proposal author,

I am for this increase in valdiator sets. YES

2 Likes

Thanks for your support.

1 Like

For now the bottom dropped to 50k ATOM. If validator manages to collect for example 20k ATOM and is very productive in others chains and in engineering side, it is very easy to get in to active set with ICF delegations.

Probably takes few months after this before the bottom creeps up closer to 80k and this proposal might be needed.

2 Likes

Should we consider discussing this proposal again, given that the 1) bottom of the active set is more than 80k atom and 2) it would highly likely increase when ICF would distribute its delegations for the delegations program?

My opinion: I am all in favour, as the current cutoff line (which is at around $1m right now) makes it practically impossible for smaller teams to join without external support, meaning only the big teams can get active.

3 Likes

Can you help me put this on-chain. @lexa

1 Like

I want to point out now that that ‘bottom of the set’ has been fluctuating a ton lately - down to 40k ish, up to 100k. Where is the data on how the threshold of ATOM changed after we last expanded it? Was that change lasting? Or did we add more small players into a game where they are still not able to rise in the set and be sustainable?

Something that has come up a lot in conversations about Interchain Security is that the bottom of the set is really not profitable - many of them are just barely breaking even (if that). Personally, I’m not in favour of introducing more competition into a business where the smaller entities are already under stress.

Especially as Replicated Security picks up and we start onboarding consumer chains, meaning validators will need to be running multiple nodes to participate on the Hub. Neutron has projected that they want to onboard at the end of April, so it’s a terrible time to throw new validators into the set. They will pretty immediately need to validate two chains with unfamiliar technology (very few of the inactive validators participated in Game of Chains or are present in the Replicated Security persistent testnet).

I personally don’t support an increase in the set size and I think that if this goes on chain, the readily-accessible idea that ‘more actors = decentralization = good’ will wipe out the nuanced-but-practical awareness of the validator financial situation, and infrastructure needs of Replicated Security. This is kind of to be expected - there’s not really a reason to know about that stuff until you’re in the thick of it (but then it’s too late)! I also think validators will face social pressure to vote YES even if it’s not a good idea because voting NO might imply that they’re anti-decentralization, which is a pretty crappy opinion to hold as a blockchain person lol.

This is all a long-winded way to say that I don’t feel comfortable putting this on-chain and giving detailed help getting it there, but the guides I wrote for submitting proposals are still up to date and very usable. I would highly recommend testing things out on the Theta testnet before trying to put it on mainnet.

5 Likes

it’s a terrible time to throw new validators into the set.

We have validators in inactive set that were there for a while and are just a bit short to get into the active set, so it’s not only the new validators:

Additionally, we have 4 new validators who would join the active set after receiving ICF delegations (myself included) by the beginning of April, which will likely push some of the bottom validators out, causing another struggle in the bottom of the active set and likely another increase of the bar required to get active.

Considering what I mentioned above, do you think raising the active set size by 5 or 10 would be a better solution, or are you still against this idea in general?

3 Likes

Thank you for your detailed answer, I agree with most of the arguments. Now I do think it is not the right time to post this proposal as the HUB is in the transition phase.

But, I do not agree with the argument

Mainly because it is setting a precedence that we only onboard the validators who have participated in the GoC and are working on the latest testnet. While we do know anybody with enough voting power can join the active set.

On a side note, thank you for sharing the details about how to put gov prop on-chain, I have heard there is this UI made for this thing. Do you know?

2 Likes