Thanks Jehan. I dont see a calculation question as an assumption that i dont want to opt in. Im “dyor-ing”. i think thats what questions are for. to help understand whether we want to opt in or out =)
@Hesham thanks for the detailed response with me in mind
Support Elys Network as an ICS chain!
Hey Hesham!
If 15% VotePowerCap has zero effect and a lower % would help decentralization I don’t see any reasons to not do it now and wait. I’m supportive of your idea to find a middle ground around 5% to 10%
It will be interesting to see how the delegators react toward opt-in validators.
It is a yes from us but, how sure are we about 45 validator cap?
If the airdrop only goes to the top 45 opting-in validators, this encourages ATOM delegators to stake with validators with the most voting power, further centralising the Cosmos active set 
with a votepowercap of around 5% this would encourage the delegators to bet on the validators with the least voting power among the 45.
Yes, that’s the very probable simulation, and if this happens Chains need to find a solution for the sake of a healthy ecosystem.
Only the top 2 Cosmos hub validators have 5% voting power, one of which is a CEX, so it makes virtually no difference.
It could be that I’m interpreting the VP parameter incorrectly - if it’s about Elys then disregard.
In any case, it would be fair to distribute the extra airdrop to delegators of opting-in validators regardless of if they are chosen to validate or not, since being chosen is out of our control.
Isn’t the power cap 15%?
Thank you @Hesham for your message. It was very insightful.
I have one more question about validator fees: Will the protocol allow validators to choose their own percentage, or will it impose a fixed rate or a recommended range?
Just a suggestion, you can use the “@” mention to reply to any specific user in the discussion. This will alert the person you’re addressing.
@JulienViolet Every validator can choose their own commission level for each consumer chain. This input in the model is just an assumption.
@serejandmyself No worries! Just making sure
We will definitely vote yes on this proposal, the parameters will have to change as a response to how this first PSS chain is going to work out and we are 100% okay with that.
We are not a 100% sure yet on wether we will opt-in but it looks likely at this point in time due to the commitment native governance tokens alongside a sizeable revenue cut by the protocol. If we need to charge more commission to make running the consumer chain viable we will but hope to direct as much to our ATOM stakers increasing our validator specific APR.
@jtremback do you know if Explorers and interfaces like mintscan/Keplr will be able to easily integrate the validator APR differences caused by validators opting in to these ICS chains?
Best,
Ertemann
Lavender.Five Nodes
We hope they will. We provided the base calculations within our model. Integration from the explorers within their product suite is the best place to offer more granular details on actual revenue distribution. They vary based on each chain’s revenue share mechanism, the effects of the votepowercap (if any) and also from each individual validator fee. There was simply no way we could include such complexity in the model, hence the reason why we opted for a “generic” validators fee to perform our statistical analysis.
What about the Airdrop thing? Will the airdrop boost works also for inactive validators? I’m asking because if a validator can’t manage to be in the active set some delegators from the hub could redelegate away from him.
The result of this could be that delegators will redelegate away from the inactive validators and delegate only to those 45 active validator in Elys.
If Airdrop boost will be distributed also to inactive valdiators (on Elys) maybe a validator could evaluate to opt-in even if it will be inactive, in order to not risk to lose delegations on the hub (they could lose them also for not having Elys revenue rewards VS the 45 active validators, but at least not from airdrop)
The model only provides a guideline for an estimated average validator %fee. Each validator will set this parameter independently and can unilaterally adjust it over time. We simply couldn’t get down to that level of granularity with a global model like this one, hence why we opted for this generalized variable.
Hello all,
Based on community feedback, we have revised the max power cap down to 10%. This may be a good starting point as an upper limit, which as mentioned before may never kick in given our active set of up to 45 validators.
We will be meeting with Keplr soon and will bring up the validator APRs in that discussion.
We are now targeting a mid September launch, which means we can expect the governance proposal to be raised in mid August, so we have abotu 2-3 more weeks left to collect input in this discussion, please continue to provide us your recommendations. Thank you 
Hesham
All eligible ATOM stakers based on the snapshots that will be announced, will be able to claim the airdrop (subject to various criteria such as geographic restrictions and anti-sybil). The opt-in validators will receive an additional airdrop boost but if use the snapshot for the bonus airdrop, people who redelegate afterwards wont be eligible for that.
I have a question about anti-sybil, have you considered measures to allow justified exceptions?
Ex. validator sends the rewards to the wallet assigned as validator bond for liquid staking
do you mean all opted-in also if inactive?