who are “they” in the first place? where is your on-chain proposal to make the valset effectively sustainable? i thought we were in an open space where anyone could propose things and see what the community decides.
anyway nevermind, that’s off topic, and i guess we’re in an ideological impasse there.
This proposal have mutliple points I disagree:
That’s about 1000 ATOM income per year and not 5539.
We need to increase spots let’s do this
I was against expanding to 180…and I’m definitely against expanding to 200.
Expanding the set while still allowing the bottom X% to not be forced to validate consumer chains is ridiculous mental gymnastics.
The Hub’s business model was always to be a shared security provider. If you want to be a Hub validator, you should be expected to support all consumer chains leveraging RS.
For the love of God do not expand the set right now.
I get the sense that many VaaS team in Cosmoverse is not too comfortable with this proposal. Perhaps it will still go through as the top 25 validators voting for it.
Thank you everyone for your insightful feedback.
@ephemeral_25, @David_Crosnest:
We’re working on a proposal to join the active set. In my view, the only people who would be interested in such a proposal are those aiming to be part of that active set. Any barrier to entry should serve an economic function for the hub, rather than being arbitrarily set at 120k ATOM or 80k ATOM.
@ZacCheah:
The situation resembles a tug-of-war game, where existing active validators, especially those at the bottom, may oppose the proposal to avoid losing delegations. There are other critical factors contributing to the hub’s growth that should be prioritized.
General Points:
The only options for joining the active set currently are either waiting for the entry barrier to change or receiving a large single-party delegation. Concerns about centralization are valid but separate from the issues this proposal aims to address.
@effortcapital:
I’ve been following your work closely and appreciate your contributions. Your point about AEZ not being mandatory for chain participation is crucial. While we at Secure Secrets aim to support all AEZ chains, it’s a commitment we can make only in this forum and not enforce on-chain.
Suggestions:
Forcing every validator to support all consumer chains may be too extreme. A more balanced approach could be requiring validators to support 60% of consumer chains. Failure to do so could result in a cap on the number of delegations they can receive. This provides flexibility for validators who might have legal or compliance concerns with certain networks.
Closing Thoughts:
I consider this a high priority, especially for validators like us waiting to join the active set. Knowing whether it’s worth the infrastructure investment is crucial.
Going to make a short comment. Its a yes from our side. Yes, validators, such as ourselves are in deep shmud right now, but increasing the set allows the free market to attract those who will want to do it at their will, hence, very simple → increase decentralization a little
lets put up a prop been knocked out 5 times and floor is almost 100k atoms again
Agree with this sentiment. There is no need to expand the validator set.
You could, but I would vote no.
I would like to i am waiting for some more push on this front before pushing this on chain.
Also like I mentioned I am waiting for some other proposals on chain as per @effortcapital other ATOM economic reasons.
The only reason for this proposal to pass or even be discussed is that 180 is a crappy number. 200 is a better number. I suppose if there’s a secondary reason, I was thinking about it the other day and I mean what we should really be trying for is a large, stake decentralized, geographically decentralized validator set.
New validators do need to understand, however, it’s unlikely they will be in profit, even remotely, especially if the inflation reduction passes.
However, I do understand the appeal starting in a financial loss, and working toward gain while earning skills.
New validators do need to understand, however, it’s unlikely they will be in profit, even remotely, especially if the inflation reduction passes.
Just to state a perspective from the bottom of the active set here: there are validators willing to join and running their nodes despite being inactive (Crypto Dungeon is a good one, for instance), and the same happened last time, so even with the financial loss there’s a strong desire for new validators to join. I am unsure about how many such validators we have though and whether increasing the active set by 20 spots would fill all of the new positions and if we would end up in a situation where there’s not enough validators to cover for the active set spots (unlikely I guess, but still). Increasing it by that much should drastically drop the entrance level and the amount of ATOMs required to be bonded to be active validator.
One more thing that it’s sometimes not about the profit, but about the status: if a validator claims they validate The Hub, that kinda increases their reputation a bit rather than if they validate some niche chains.
I don’t know if the bottom 5% of current validator sets would agree with this. First, the rewards made are barely enough for them, and if we expand the validator sets, it means they would not be in the bottom 5% anymore (if soft opt-out is implemented), and they would need to run the nodes for ICS chains = additional cost.
they would stay in the bottom 5% as its by total atoms staked unless they grow significantly
For me its currently a NO.
We have been discussing for months on how to support small validators with rising costs. Expanding the set would only further complicate funding and increase expenses for delegators. Additionally, I am skeptical that adding more spots would truly enhance decentralization.
I sympathize with those eager to join the active set but find themselves unable to do so. I hope they will make it through ICF delegation.
I don’t think that we can count on the ICF for much of anything, including validator evaluation.
I would have been entirely against this, but there is no other place to learn how to operate the other than the hub itself.
Provided that validators understand that they are likely to make losses, why not?