Reward Delagators Policing the Validators Properly

Change log


Reward Proactive Delagators Policing and holding Validators Accountable

I found this issue and brought it to the community’s attention alone with our any real technical knowledge prior to a very deep dive into this issue


1200 ATOM

Forum post link

IPFS link

Governance votes

The following items summarize the voting options and what it means for this proposal:

YES Reward cosmos1k4j7fmmhsvcg0xygjy44xgk74xjtus3dwcsstx 1200 ATOM
NO - Do not reward any ATOM
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.