looks good, but i will also add more reasons we discussed in the problem. how validator who has been part of Goc and have ICF funding are inactive.
If you think it I good you can add otherwise I am okay with your draft.
Okay I added some more context and updated my original post containing the description, do you think thatās better or is there something more to add?
1 Like
Yes, it looks good to go.
1 Like
Okay, itās live and in deposit period: Interchain Explorer by Cosmostation. If someone from this thread can contribute by depositing, itād be nice. Iāll also ask in validators chat to raise awareness.
1 Like
Where can i find the deposit address?
Thereās no deposit address, like with regular transfers, you only need to specify the proposal ID (which is 797 here) to deposit to when depositing. This service should allow it I guess: Interchain Governance
Finally, i was able to make the deposit. Prop is in the voting phase now.
1 Like
Lovely.
One thing I suggest for the future, as this proposal only increases the validator set by 5 spots, as opposed to previous proposals, we (as a community) should monitor and analyse how this proposal (if it passes) will influence validator set, and if thereās more desire for validators to join (I guess that will be actually true but only time will tell), itād be nice to bootstrap the discussion on increasing the active set again. Maybe itās worth it to start discussing it again in a month or two after (and if) this proposal will pass, so weāll have time to see how it would affect the validator set and if there are a lot of new validators willing to join.
Now letās just wait and see the voting for this one.
Is it just me or is the title now proposing to decrease the set? 
1 Like
I was going to go know for the usual reasons, and I guess I just want to ask fellow participants how theyāre feeling about this one I read the comments from Cosmos voice and it is true that itās a fairly negligible difference. I would love it if these five new validators would run Neutron nodes and ICS nodes generally.
1 Like
Itās āincreasing to 180 from 175ā, not āincreasing from 180 to 175ā so itās all good.
My point of view is that I agree that itās a small difference, but I also agree with the concerns raised by Lexa above, about how unpredictable it can be with ICS launch. Neutron launch didnāt make any difference towards the active set (other than 8 validators getting jailed and quickly restoring), but this may change with more consumer chains launch (we have Stride upcoming at least), so it might be unsafe raising the active set by 25, as this would drop the entrance barrier to a really small amount (as of now, 200th validator has 1168 ATOMs staked, and I am pretty sure not all of the validator have their nodes running, so the barrier would likely decrease not to this value, but even more).
I am pretty sure a lot of new validators would love to join, but it seems to be that itās safer to do it gradually, increasing active set by smaller amounts periodically rather than doing a one big change. But thereās a lot of desire for newer validators to join, so not increasing it seems like cutting of a lot of nice validators who can bring more value.
Thereās a mistake in the āGovernance votesā section of this proposalās description:
YES - You approve this increase in the validator set to 200 from 175. NO - You disapprove of this increase in the validator set to 200 from 175.
As per the title, there should be 180 instead of 200.
Thatās my bad, unfortunately I cannot change it anymore once itās posted. Sorry for misleading.
The title and the overall description and the parameter change should have the correct values though.
1 Like
OK, thanks for explanation.
1 Like
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 āGovernance votesā, where it says 200 where it should have said 180.