Set a minimum commission of 5% when we upgrade to sdk 47 [fully rewritten, abandoned]

The simply staking team has rewritten this proposal and they’ve done a really brilliant job of it.

Therefore, instead of submitting this very minimal proposal, please allow me to link you to simply staking truly excellent proposal:

Thanks very much to everybody who provided feedback here, it was quite valuable.

Specific shoutouts to

@jasonsopko, @Damien, @Golden-Ratio-Staking and @BlocksUnited for lending their vision to the revised proposal and / or spirited criticism.


I agree that these practices should come to an end; but the 5% notional standard is a significant amount. Over 60 validators have fees lower than 5%, and many of them appear to be very honest. If inflation decreases, fees increase. This may seem like a minor detail, but in the long run, for delegators it is not… 3%?


I’m open to discussions about the exact commission rate, though I think 5 is a really good place to start.

Counteroffer of 4.69420808%?

I want to recognize that there are many good validators under 5% commission on the cosmos hub. You are completely correct there.

One that comes readily to mind is SG1, and another is autostake.

Now, about what I think sunflower really did, is the exploited the range basically between 0 and 5% dropped it all the way to zero, undercut literally everybody except for the other ones priced at zero, and then immediately raised their fees. So please view this proposal as attempting to reduce the differential in common validator commissions.

Since @EurekaPi has liked this post, I’m going to adjust the above post to 4.69420808%.


I’m all for setting a minimum commission. Maybe not to 4.69420808% though :sweat_smile:

There should also be a maximum allowable change per 24 hours on commissions. For example, at Simply Staking we have it set to 1% per 24 hours to mitigate any risk of a ‘mistake’ and setting it to 100% by accident.


We use the same setting.

Do you want to make that global?

Kind of makes sense I guess

I don’t think it’s a bad idea to have a discussion around that to be honest.

Like having some sort of cap (5% or so). Having it like that would allow for some validators to up the commissions slowly but not too slowly in case of having to cover costs and would also protect delegators from having a massive cut in their APY in the space of 24 hours.


Having 5% commission should be discussed there are some good validators below 5% but it should also be discussed is this some kind of manipulation to aquire more voting power or are they a genuine validator who supports the network.

As Damien mentioned parameter --commission-max-change-rate="0.01" should somehow be hard locked in so similar thing doesn’t happen again.


I agree with this.
i think the minimum commission should be 3%.
As a simple delegator, i see these 5% a little too much.
And what about the maximum commission rate, since it s a bigger threat for the sustainability of the tokenomics ? I think we should set it also. Probably around 20-25%.

:sweat_smile: 4.69420808% is funny. I like 3.5%, 3.69%, 4%, or 4.69% to begin with. Also cool idea with the 1%/24 hrs change :+1:

I think that we need to keep the Cosmos market as free and open as possible, and by introducing mandatory minimum commission rates for validators, you are taking away that freedom.

Adding a minimum commission benefits only the existing validators, as they can just go along with the terms and collect fees from all users.

It harms the delegators, and ultimately the project, however. You are taking away free and open choices from people and making it more difficult to enter the validator set for new validators who could contribute to the health and security of the chain.

You can’t let one bad apple ruin the entire batch. As an alternative, I suggest having block explorers and wallets point out that a validator has an unusually high maximum commission rate and high daily increase maximum combination and let the user decide who they want to stake with.

New validators have very few ways to gain delegations within the active set, and lowering their commissions is one way for them to gain delegations while simultaneously allowing for higher rewards for their delegators.

Overall, a bad idea that stifles an open and free market, and reduces competition amongst the validator set, which ultimately hurts everyone. The last thing we want is a stagnant validator set with an entitlement mentality.


We are absolutely in favor of 5% minimum commission. Not all 0% commission validators are crooks, but 0% is the bait crooks use to lure people in. We’ve seen this 0% to 100% commission scheme on other chains.

Ask yourself, “Why would a stranger on the internet offer me something for nothing?”

And good luck getting your questions answered from a 0% commission validator. They have virtually no incentive to care about you.

Additionally, 0% commission nodes get huge quickly and cause centralization of voting power.

Plus, it costs time and money to run validator nodes, especially as consumer chains are onboarded and more infrastructure is required. Small validators are essential for network health and security. Placing a minimum commission network wide will level the playing field.

Delegators, take pride in paying a little commission and supporting your validator. It allows them to run the best equipment to reliably sign blocks and earn rewards for you.

The average validator commission across all blockchains is 10%. Solana validators charge 20%, as do many Polkadot validators.

We’d fully support 5% minimum.


“Why would a stranger on the internet offer me something for nothing?”

As an operator that runs 0% commission validators, the answer is pretty simple:

To gain delegations by offering higher rewards than other validators are offering.

Stakers keep 100% of their rewards and I gain voting power.

You see, we’re not really offering them something for nothing, it’s a fair trade. We’re not entitled to their rewards, we’re asking nicely for them.

As I move up in the voting power, I generally increase my commission to earn a meager amount of rewards while still competing with the other validators and still hopefully retain existing delegations.

I’m sure that all of the established validators would love to stifle their competition and make it easier for themselves to earn rewards. The cost is on the people using the chain, since you’re taking away rewards from them and building barriers to entry for new validators that could possibly compete with you.

Bad idea for the chain and its users, great idea for established validators.


Hi everyone here hope you guys have a wonderful Sunday weekend. The proposal of minimum commission trade should be 5% would be normal for there team proposals. Not to bad to approve here Commission.

Can we list the benefits to the users for the validators setting a 5% minimum commission?

  1. They lose a minimum of 5% of their staking rewards to the validators.
  2. Validators can still increase their commission to 100%, regardless of their minimum commission.
  3. New validators have no way to offer a lower commission rate to gain an advantage over existing legacy validators, stifling competition and growth.

If you’re going to remove an existing free and open market, it seems that it would make more sense to set a maximum commission rate of 20% rather than a minimum commission rate of 5%. Otherwise you’re solely doing this to benefit the existing validator set and not to protect the users.


If the true goal is to reduce more incidents like the Sunflower validator, then the solution is to set a cap on the maximum commission to 10%. Setting a minimum commission does not solve the problem.

Just like any startup business, it is important for new validators to have the ability to set a lower minimum commission than what others are offering to attract more delegations. Removing this ability will just ensure that the current validators continue to dominate.

What good reason will anyone have to delegate to a new validator if they offer the same commission as the well established validators ? This proposal goes against the free market principles.


Why not force a max commission rather than minimum commission? Cap it at 20% or 15%. Many who stake want the 0% commission. At Secret many go with Melea for that reason and regardless how one feels delegators should be able to make this choice themselves.


It produces a level playing field for all validators. Then it comes down to how well validators run their businesses to compete with each other. That’s best for the network and best for the delegators.

1 Like

“As I move up in the voting power, I generally increase my commission” AKA: Bait and switch.

And the second your delegators feel deceived they will jump ship to the next 0% validator who will pull the same b.s.

If delegators are conditioned to understand and value the service they’re receiving, all networks will be better off.

We stand by our position: 0% validators shouldn’t be allowed on any blockchain networks.

Additionally, we’d advocate for a tax levied on larger validators that went into the community pool. That would incentivize delegators to avoid the largest nodes, therefore helping the network to decentralize.


How is it “bait and switch” when the variables by which I’m governed are clearly viewable for all to see? When you choose a validator to delegate to, pay attention to their variables, as they are allowed to increase to a max commission and max daily rate in plain view. It’s not deceptive at all.

As I increase my commission rate, I will likely continue to lose delegations to other lower commission validators.

I like a free and open market. That’s the true level playing field for all validators.

1 Like