I will say now that I have submitted a proposal it is really dishearteneing to have validators ask 0 questions on my multiple posts, then vote no or no with veto (to confiscate my deposit) with absolutely no explanation or feedback. I feel like validators at the very least should participate in the forum if they’re going to shut down a proposal.
3 Likes
let me translate this: this prop is crap as it wasnt accepted. people disagree with me. bad people.
1 Like
I think this idea is something worth trying. Validators I would like to know how much time you might be able to contribiute to the real world management of different consumer facing services as a way to generate positive cash flow and with laborers wearing branded clothing doing some of these manuel services?
Want to have a more robust discussion on this?
Ah, the usual dunce. Try re-reading what I wrote slowly. Unsuprising you’re a val. People who don’t program, or contribute any code whatsoever to the eco. You run bash commands and pretend you’re contributing. Validators are surely the cancer of cosmos. Now go troll someone else with your non-existent skills.
Thank you for bringing this discussion back to the forefront of the forum.
Validators provide essential services, no question. However,
is one of the biggest issues we face currently RE Hub governance.
In additional to your suggestion, proposing decoupling delegated voting power from Validators and requiring to have more self-stake.
Hey everyone, We GATA HUB, a Cosmos validator since 2022. We’ve been part of this ecosystem for a while now, across multiple chains, and we’ve seen the ups and downs. The conversation around validator incentives and behavior is important, and we want to add some perspective from the ground.
Most Validators Are Operating at a Loss
Let’s be real: the majority of validators across Cosmos chains are running at a net loss. Only a handful usually the top 10 to 15% by voting power are consistently profitable. On some chains, none of the validators are profitable. So while it’s easy to point fingers, the truth is most of us are funding infrastructure out of pocket because we care about the future of this ecosystem. We are validating keeping Future aspect in mind, validators collectively has spend Hundred of thousand USD to keep Nomic running, if they decide to shut down today who will be at loss? and this is just one example.
It’s Not Just About Selling but Who is selling
The idea of “responsible selling” only really applies to those with enough stake to matter. On most chains, 66% of the voting power is concentrated in fewer than 30 validators. That means any real impact—whether on governance, token price, or community direction—comes from a small set of top validators. If we’re being honest, those are the only ones for whom “responsible behavior” truly moves the needle.
So if we’re blaming validators for governance issues or market behavior, we should be clear: we’re really talking about the top 20–25%. The rest of us are just trying to keep the lights on.
Validators Do a Lot More Than People Realize
Beyond signing blocks, validators provide the backbone of the ecosystem:
- IBC relaying, usually without compensation
- Public APIs and RPCs, which apps and explorers rely on
- Archive nodes, which preserve chain history for devs and data tools
- And of course, constant monitoring and maintenance to keep things running
All of that comes with real-world costs—hardware, hosting, engineering time. These services don’t magically appear.
A More Constructive Direction
We’re not here to complain, we’re here to suggest a path forward. The root issue isn’t validator behavior, it’s that too many chains are fragmented and underutilized. If we could consolidate activity apps, users, devs—onto more central networks like the Cosmos Hub, everyone benefits. It would increase staking yields, improve validator economics, and make governance more meaningful.
A denser, more active Hub could actually fix a lot of what we’re talking about here—and give smaller validators a fighting chance.
Final Thought:
Validators are not the problem. Less apps , user fragmentation, and high inflation are. At GATA HUB, we remain committed to transparency, infrastructure, and service. But we urge the community to engage in honest, structural solutions—not scapegoating.
6 Likes
I will write slowly, so you can read letter by letter my friend. Go open our GitHub and try to learn what we do first. Then come back and tell us that we dont contribute code. Thats one.
Two. people such as yourself are people i dont get upset with. Its hard enough not to pity fools such as yourself that a) cant use the internet top find info about who they talk to, b) do not understand the underlying concepts of blockchains following A, and c) fools that try to jump into attack, even though, discussing a subject they have 0 knowledge about.
- The speed at which you type has no bearing on the speed at which someone reads what you wrote.
- People don’t read words letter by letter, and the way in which typed words are recognized has no relation to the speed at which the author types.
Does any of this matter? No. But, when you call other people fools and fabricate serious code contributions, it’s a little silly to make no sense.
Your post is littered with grammatical errors calling me a fool.
This is such an incoherent sentence I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say. You make dashboards and run infra, you have contributed nothing of importance in any way, shape, or form.
Again, just a really incoherent sentence; but, this is a silly remark once again. I’m sure everyone on this forum understands what blockchain is. Clicking enter for your validator scripts is nothing that privileges your knowledge of rudimentary topics over anyone else.
You literally responded to my post disrespectfully which prompted my response, then have proceeded to attack in this response the entire time.
So, let’s review what I was disappointed about. I spent months building out a zero-knowledge proof system for Cosmos. TC is one of the most used apps in Ethereum’s history. I posted multiple times on the forum and got no negative feedback from validators. Then, behind closed doors, it turns out validators are scared to host the app:
So, this was all disappointing to me, regardless of whether you disliked the proposal. It’s disappointing because validators do not participate in mandated discussions for proposers, and then are scared to run applications that more resilient blockchains (Ethereum) support. I ended up selling this project to a Solana team, so it didn’t negatively impact me financially. But, why has Cosmos fell behind? Perhaps because many validators are not engaged with the community and validators are scared to run apps that the single-computer-chain Solana acquires without two thoughts.
1 Like
Why does this need explaining? I can validate whatever chain I want for whatever reason I want. It’s permissionless.
Then you tweet about it an hundred times hoping some naïve retails fall for it, buy the token and stake on your node. Then you vote YES on 5% minimum commissions to pAy FoRR tHe sErveRs cOst 
, stewardship, foundation delegation, incentives…! meeh permissionless
You do this on 100 useless chains that all look the same then wonder why Cosmos isn’t attractive to anyone els
1 Like
Yes, if you look at Ping.pub, there is very low activity — only about 10.5 users per day, making 1–4 transactions per block.
Cosmos Hub is already practically inactive, and most companies using Cosmos Hub are more interested in launching their own EVM chains where they deploy their DApps.
Do I? Will you show me?
1 Like
10.5 users per day? This sounds made up. Where is this stat from?
Here is the explorer that give you all the stats you want. 3,000 daily active users.
Map of zones - Cosmos network explorer