What would stop another honeypot from starting at 4.69420808% then when they had enough delegators [quote=“jacobgadikian, post:1, topic:11042”]
jam it up to 100%.
[/quote]
Why would a minimum commission fix this? It seems to me all you would be doing is setting another floor. And it seems that this change would only help certain validators.
4 Likes
This is why we add a constant change rate to commission per period so it rate limits the transition.
Suggested vs minimum is a BIG diffference. Consumers could accuse the #COSMOS collective of price-fixing practices. Thread carefully here with required fees, especially if there is not a legitimate basis for the levels.
1 Like
Supporting the idea to set minimum com% and 24-hour change allowance,
1 Like
I think we should keep some parameters out of the reach of the governance and specifically when we have a representative governance model. A validator should be allowed to keep the commission at whatever value they want it to be.
if we have any parameter on chain then it doesn’t mean we have to enforce governance on it.
2 Likes
Very good discussions here, as we can see the reasons for validators charging for certain commissions.
1 Like
How do you reach all of your delegators to let them know once you plan to raise your commission?
Depends on the chain, but usually on their Discord or Telegram server.
In general, I support the idea of having a low minimum commission, around 2%. I believe validators should not be viewed as competing startups but rather as entities whose main purpose is to secure the network and guide the chain in a direction that benefits our delegators. In my opinion, the commission rate of a validator is given too much importance. Instead, we should strive to foster a culture that values contribution, security, and reliability over gaining a mere one percent increase in APY. I think a low minimum commission encourages these values and is more favorable for long-term delegators compared to a 0% commission.
Nevertheless, setting a minimal commission won’t solve the stated problem entirely. Hence, I would like to see the introduction of a “max_daily_rate_change” mechanism, which can be modified through governance.
In fact, I believe both of these aspects should be voted on independently and proposed separately.
As voting for a minimum commission poses a conflict of interest for every validator, I will vote abstain if it goes on-chain.
We support this idea of setting minimum commission. let’s just set it at 5% as proposed. after that we can decide again to decrease or increase the minimum commission rate. As I believe we might need to decrease this in the bull run.
1 Like
I request that this remain about chain, and specifically ICS, sustainability instead of about the sunflower attack.
I have also requested (and have heard) that the language of proposal will be cleaned up to be simple/concise so we don’t lose the plot.
2 Likes
I like that you are going to abstain from this proposal and maybe other validatorss can do so.
But IMO we should keep most of the variables out of the scope of governance.
This is not related to this proposal but @jacobgadikian what do you think about this scenario. I saw that you were talking about removing abstain and NWV from certain props. And then their are proposal like 812 where we should burn the asset or it might lead to a lot of spam.
1 Like
Good evening Cosmos hub community, this discussion has moved here:
1 Like
Since everyone is voting yes, I support this Proposals that on team. Because one tree can never stay in Forest. And start ruling only so it’s have been on Process right now.