- [Feb. 8 - updated to focus the proposal on the proposal jury program, shortened it based on feedback]
- [Apr. 13 - paused and submitted instead to the ATOM Accelerator RFP]
Hi Cosmos, I’m Josh, one of the leaders of the Validator Commons. We’ve been active in Cosmos for a while now, and would love some feedback on this proposal to help get the project funded and staffed!
- The Validator Commons is a nonprofit coalition of validators working to improve validator governance and foster validator leadership through experiments like town hall debates, proposal juries, and tooling co-ops
- We’re asking for 3000 ATOM to help us continue our validator jury experiments as well as a community organizer and researcher to support additional governance experiments and research (e.g. running a Pol.is conversation for a Hub proposal) related to the Hub
The Validator Commons began as an effort by representatives from validators and non-profit organizations like Metagov to define technical standards and best-practices in proof-of-stake governance in response to a big list of problems that we felt were holding back validator governance. In particular, we believe that validators themselves need to be the ones researching, implementing, and taking responsibility for improvements to the validator ecosystem—and they need to be able to do this without always looking to foundations and founding teams for support.
Since launching at Consensus 2022, we’ve (1) created a shared vision in the Commons declaration, (2) developed several versions of a governance participation assessment for validators, (3) organized well-attended validator workshops at Consensus, Nebular, Cosmoverse, Staking Summit, and (4) piloted new validator-support systems including proposal juries, town halls, notably on ATOM 2.0, validator-led peer review, and a tooling/research pool. Our members have also produced several pieces of research related to PoS governance, ranging from groundwork toward a Juno constitution to decision frameworks for evaluating proposals to studies of belief and ideology in crypto.
- to improve validator governance
- to foster validator leadership
- to improve the governance of proof-of-stake blockchains
The Validator Commons is a membership-based body open to all validators. Our team is subject to change and growth based on our evolving membership.
- Joshua Tan, Metagov | LinkedIn / Twitter
- Daniel Hwang, ex-Stakefish | Twitter / LinkedIn
- Reena Shtedle, Citadel.one | Twitter / LinkedIn
- Tim Webster, RMIT | LinkedIn
- Damien Bonello, Simply Staking | Twitter
- Zafercan Cakir, Stake&Relax | LinkedIn
- Othman Gbadamassi, Chainflow | Twitter
- David Fortson, LOA Labs | Twitter / LinkedIn
- Avi, Kleomedes | Twitter
- Vic Kaul, Chorus One | LinkedIn
- Jay Jeong, a41 | Twitter / LinkedIn
- Ellie Rennie, RMIT | Twitter / LinkedIn
- and many others
Funding will be used to support a community organizer and dedicated research staff. To prevent conflicts-of-interest in spending and to ensure that spending benefits all validators (and not just the most active participants of the Commons), all fund expenses will be governed by Metagov, a 501c3 nonprofit in the US dedicated to supporting digital governance.
The Validator Commons is a non-profit coalition of aligned validators and allies. We believe that governance matters. This grant will help support three concrete activities of the Commons:
- Validator Juries. Intended to increase the quality and quantity of validator participation in governance, save validators time, enable validator specialization, and improve proposal quality.
- Policy Research. Focused on generating discrete proposals to improve governance.
- In-Person Workshops. To build community, educate validators, and explore the future of PoS governance.
As part of this grant, we will run at least two additional validator juries.
Further, we will develop and publish on the Hub forums at least one fully-developed governance proposal describing a discrete improvement to the governance, decision-making process, and or community management of the Hub.
To ensure transparency and build trust, we will publish a progress report in 6 months so that the Cosmos community can better understand how funds have been spent and can evaluate the return on its investment. The report will be posted to this forum.
The following items summarize the voting options and what it means for this proposal:
YES - you believe that validator governance and validator leadership are important and thus wish to fund the Validator Commons work to improve them
NO - you don’t believe that validator governance or leadership is important and thus do not agree to fund the Commons
NO WITH VETO - A ‘NoWithVeto’ vote indicates a proposal either (1) is deemed to be spam, i.e., irrelevant to Cosmos Hub, (2) disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or (3) violates or encourages violation of the rules of engagement as currently set out by Cosmos Hub governance. If the number of ‘NoWithVeto’ votes is greater than a third of total votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.
ABSTAIN - You wish to contribute to quorum but you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal.