[PROPOSAL] POW Incentives For Network Efficiency and Reward Parity


In recent discussions with close to a third of the ATOM validator set, it has come to light that 15 validators are already harnessing underutilized resources to mine ZEPHYR, a proof-of-work coin. This practice, initially an organic development, highlighted an opportunity for network efficiency enhancement and a fairer distribution of incentives. This proposal aims to formalize this emerging trend into a universal standard, benefiting the ATOM network.


Validators in the lower half of the active validator set on the ATOM network possess extra bandwidth that remains dormant, rendering parts of the network inefficient. This proposal suggests that these validators utilize their excess capacity to mine ZEPHYR. Not only does this approach mitigate the inefficiency, but it also aligns with community-driven initiatives spearheaded by contributors like Larry, who have been vocal about similar practices.


  1. Compute Power Utilization: Currently, the ATOM network does not demand high compute power usage, especially outside peak periods. By diverting this dormant energy towards ZEPHYR mining, we can significantly enhance capital efficiency.
  2. Sustainability for Lower-Ranked Validators: Lower-ranked validators often struggle to maintain operational viability. By enabling them to mine ZEPHYR, these validators can more easily achieve a break-even point, thus stabilizing the network.
  3. Mandatory Participation: To maintain a robust and efficient network, it is proposed that validators who do not participate in this initiative through a designated ‘permissioned portal’ for submitting proof of work mining metrics may face exclusion from the set. This measure is crucial for maintaining network integrity and efficiency.
  4. Future Proposals for Resource Allocation: Acknowledging the need for further network support, a larger proposal could be considered to reinvest resources from the Interchain Foundation (ICF) or community pools in mining apparatus and direct investment strategies.
  5. Addressing Network Challenges: It’s no secret that ATOM faces sustainability issues, with a 20% return rate becoming a source of explicit FUD rather than a boon. This proposal suggests reducing this rate to 5%, supplemented by universal ZEPHYR mining, as a compromise solution to stabilize and strengthen the network.
  6. Performance Metrics: The recent outperformance of the ZEPHYR token compared to the ATOM token cannot be overlooked. This shift in market dynamics further supports the proposal’s rationale and potential benefits.

Implementation Strategy

  1. Mandated Mining: Implementing a rule that mandates lower-ranked validators to engage in ZEPHYR mining.
  2. Permissioned Portal: Developing a secure, permissioned portal for validators to report their mining metrics, ensuring transparency and accountability.
  3. Utilizing Democracy: Emphasizing the democratic nature of this proposal, where every validator has a say and the ability to contribute to the network’s efficiency and sustainability.
  4. Ending Political Hell: By standardizing this practice, we aim to reduce the political friction within the network, focusing on constructive growth and mutual benefits.


This proposal represents a forward-thinking approach to addressing current inefficiencies within the ATOM network. By mandating underutilized resources for ZEPHYR mining, we not only improve network efficiency but also aid in stabilizing the validator ecosystem. This initiative, rooted in the principles of utilizing democracy and ending political friction, paves the way for a more sustainable and robust ATOM network.


Thank you for your scam proposal, there is no interest for the Hub or the validators to put ressources on it.



Thank you for this feedback StakeLab.

Although you may not support the solutions put forth in the draft proposal above, we’ve seen growing support both publicly and privately from the smaller validators.

Moreover, your own position in the top half of the validator set, with over $13mm assets staked, has placed you in a position that some interpret as a “walled garden”.

no interest for the Hub or the validators

We don’t appreciate your response in that it purports to speak for/represent those in a less fortunate position than StakeLab, and we find it quite anti-democratic that you should speak on the behalf of all others in such a large network.