There are currently 175 cosmos hub validators. The goal of having only 20 will unquestionably have 155 that weren’t selected and therefore would be unhappy with the result.
Metrics for selection have been shared already, there definitely were some that we would’ve liked to select as well but we simply couldn’t because of the set size. As shared before though, with Drop managing the validator set delegations going forward, there might be some changes in the set selection.
Hi guys,
As a recent winner of New User Of The Month (Check my badges), I feel like my opinion holds weight.
I think validators should be paying Neutron for the right to validate, rather than Neutron paying validators.
It is an honour and a privilege to validate such a chain.
Thank you.
Silence for 2 days.
Sounds like my idea leaves you all speechless.
ICS chains should have the freedom to come and go. Desire nothing but the best for Neutron.
Not seeing any statement of when exactly the ATOM will be returned?
Seems to be a pattern of trying to package many separate topics into one proposal, which is understandable. Cannot support #993 unless this proposal is split, as proposed by others.
The Joint committee received 44,624 dAtom, equivalent to the 50,000 ATOM from the Neutron Foundation. In turn the Joint Committee has successfully transfered the dAtom to the Cosmos Hub community pool (see transaction here ).
Also the 1M ntrn for the migration was already sent to validators or not yet?
Not yet, will get sorted next week hopefully, need to gather the KPI data.
Thank you for your response, but am I missing something here? dAtom is a liquid-staked derivative, no?
Correct, foundation holds dAtom to not be diluted on inflation. We consulted the Joint Committee if it was ok since providing ATOM would delay the return of tokens for a month because of the un-staking period, they communicated dAtom was ok.
Prop#993:
…the Neutron Foundation has committed to return 50,000 ATOM received…" not dAtom (liquid staked derivative).
Although I appreciate the Joint Committee’s work and time, the committed ATOM is to be returned regardless the month delay.
Oh no. How horrific they return something quickly that can earn yield and be redeemed 1:1 easily.
@tknox35 We both strive to maintain the security of the Cosmos Hub, which is why we are here on this forum. Prop993 stated what would be returned, and it was not liquid staked dAtom.
@luisqa Would you kindly share when the ATOM will be returned? Thank you.
See above. The dAtom equivalent amount is already in the community pool.
Are “they” the entire Cosmos Hub “community?” In addition, the official Proposal993 states “ATOM” will be returned, NOT liquid staked ATOM (dAtom).
Good to know some, who are here for “Cosmos Hub,” are completely fine accepting 1:1 “coupons” as a form of repayment to the CP. Let alone holding onto voting strength through this.
Asking again, kindly,
@Neutron & Joint Committee:
@luisqa @agent.kwosh @Spaydh
when will the committed ATOM (not liquid staked 1:1 dAtom) be returned?
Feel free to create a governance proposal about it. I will stop replying about this issue now.
any update about this? when done can you provide an update here rather than we asking if this has been implemented or not?
My 2c: we can easily unwind this dATOM if the community wishes via CP prop. It will always be worth 50,000 ATOM or more unless the protocol crashes. This would be the same as transferring the dATOM back to Neutron, having them unwind it, then receiving ATOM.
@FHZ since the transfer of dATOM was already executed, can you put up this prop?
Speechless.
Prop993 clearly stated on-chain what Neutron was committed to returning. Genuinely confused as to why are we having this back-and-forth RE this. Is this the future of governance?
Are we saying Neutron does not honor proposal integrity? Surely, that is not the case.
If we are talking about protocol crashes, which sincerely hope never happens, are we then saying we are fine with Drop protocol’s dATOMs in the Hub’s CP, versus having the original ATOM returned in the first place?
Please share the details of the velidators who are getting this migration coverage?
Seems convenient to have Neutron enter into a new chapter, disregarding 993’s commitment to return native ATOM back to the CP (while instead returning a derivative version), aligned with 994’s timing, which stops the consumer chain phase on May 13th (Tuesday).
Would Neutron, without wasting resources on a new, unnecessary proposal, still be able to return the native ATOM (after May 13th), without the Hub needing to “claw back,” sort of speak.
@Cosmos_Nanny Not to bother, but does this not concern the Oversight Committee wrt ATOM?