Eliminate validator representation of delegators

Change log

• YYYY-MM-DD Created initial post

Summary

Eliminate validator representation of delegators

Details

Eliminate validator representation of delegators

Forum post link

IPFS link

Governance votes

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

YES - eliminate validator representation of delegators
NO - take no action
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.

Hi @jacobgadikian , Thanks for starting this discussion. While this proposal seems to align with my long-held views on governance in Cosmos chains, I believe your rather empty post doesn’t fully capture its potential. However, since it can spark a valuable conversation, I’d like to share my perspective on this topic. Understanding Voting Power First, let’s differentiate between two types of voting power: Consensus Voting Power and Governance Voting Power. In the initial stages of Cosmos SDK, developers envisioned aligning these two powers. They created a governance module where: • Delegated stake from stakers contributes to both Consensus and Governance Voting Power. • Inactive validators lose all voting power. A key difference however is that stakers can override delegated voting power by directly voting on governance proposals. This approach seemed reasonable as on-chain governance systems were still new with few successful examples. Time for a Change? There are reasons to believe a change might be beneficial. While some stakers choose validators based on governance alignment, many prioritize: • Security: Staking with larger validators for perceived…

Excerpt (1194 of 5654 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

until delegator capital is protected from validators, how will ATOM attract governance participants for any of this to be relevant?

cosmos validators have repeatedly demonstrated a disreguard for on-chain property rights across numerous chains. prop88 on the hub arbitrarily increased taxes on delegator rewards 5x and pooled the seized funds for validators to later spend on themselves.

prop16 on juno seized funds from a validator and it has yet to recover its reputation. It seems safe to say the same for ATOM following prop88.

there is no reason to think validators wont think of some new reason they need to double taxes tomorrow. so until delegator capital is protected from validators, you might as well stick to fiat

Hi Arlai, we already discuss about this so I will try to resume about your proposal, I totally agree about the fact that wallets of liquid staking and team delegation should be removed from the equation, You want to separate the consensus power (security) and governance power (politics), It will take a lot of time to generate a real separation of the 2 powers. At least at the beginning, most of the validators will opt-in as governors, because we are looking for recognition, politics in an influence game and we have to take care about how this politic is made. Governors will not have to run hardware and are not mandatory involved in technics to evaluate the smart-contracts or code upgrades. they will must be in team with multiple talents to cover all the aspects of the role. You propose to make the change in 2 time, with a first step keeping the validator power in case no governors vote. I think if this kind of modification have to be made, it should be made in 1 time. Now my personal opinion, Create 2 different kind of staking, • staking for security (consensus) where you receive rewards from the inflation like it’s done right now, this doesn’t change…

Excerpt (1191 of 1954 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗