Hello AtlasStaking,
Firstly, thank you for addressing these problematic behaviors. To provide some background for readers, proposal #885 was put forward to raise the minimum validator commission to 5%, following a previously approved on-chain discussion via proposal #826. We encourage community members to review the rationale and the community debate prior to the vote.
TL;DR: The purpose of this proposal was to establish a 5% minimum commission rate, enabling validators to generate more sustainable revenue and reducing the staking APR by 1%. Previously, certain validators employed near-zero fees to attract delegators, creating a pattern of dubious incentive structures and leading the network into a downward trend. Many of these low-fee validators primarily attracted short-term, “mercenary” capital, often delivering below-average operational standards. These practices were seen as unfair by the community and, over time, led to negative network outcomes. Attempts to establish a 5% minimum fee had previously failed due to the stake concentration of low-fee validators, but the passage of proposal #826 essentially curbed these unsustainable practices.
However, more than six months later, Melea continues to operate with apparent disregard for the community’s decision, persistently using low fees to attract delegators with the same outdated messaging. They are currently the last remaining validator from the 0% commission era continuing this approach. We believe this deliberate negative behavior warrants action by general governance.
We also feel that clear guidelines are needed to address incentives linked to validator name tags. At Govmos, we propose prohibiting all validators in the active set from offering financial incentives for delegation tied to their validator name. This would apply to current practices, such as Prysm’s airdrop incentives.
Source: https://analytics.smartstake.io/cosmos/
Furthermore, we suggest that validators not following these guidelines face jail time through community vote (if technically feasible). For those persisting in non-compliance, a second-stage penalty of validator tombstoning via an on-chain vote could be applied.
We fully support your call for the highest standards in practices and ethics within the Cosmos Hub validator set. Cosmos governance is groundbreaking in the blockchain space, and a community-led effort to eliminate these unfair practices—whether through misleading incentives or promotional name tags—is essential. To ensure effective enforcement, we recommend establishing a phased mechanism ratified by governance proposal. We’d be glad to assist in this initiative, and we invite other validators to join in building this effort: @Cosmic_Validator @Winfred @ccclaimens @neshtedle @Bro_n_Bro @StakeLab @StakeandRelax @Forbole @Imperator.co @Polkachu, and others active in this forum…
Thank you for reading,
Govmos.
