Addressing Misleading Practices by Melea Validator: Proposed Penalties and Community Actions

Dear Cosmos Hub Community, Following the ongoing discussion regarding Melea’s misleading claims of 0% commission, despite the protocol-enforced 5% minimum, it is crucial that we now shift our focus toward actionable steps. The evidence presented in the previous forum post clearly shows that Melea has been falsely advertising their commission rate for nearly nine months, misleading countless delegators and undermining the integrity of our validator ecosystem. Proposed Penalties for Melea Validator To maintain the trust and transparency that are foundational to the Cosmos Hub and surrounding Interchain, we propose the following penalties for Melea Validator: 1. Temporary Suspension from Voting on Network Proposals: • Melea should be barred from participating in governance votes for a period of one year. This will ensure that they cannot influence key decisions while under scrutiny for deceptive practices. 2. Financial Penalty: 100% Tax on Staking Rewards: • A 100% tax should be levied on all staking rewards accumulated by Melea during the period of dishonesty. This tax would be applied retroactively for each month that Melea falsely claimed a 0% commission,…

Excerpt (1194 of 3709 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Although this idea has some good intentions it leaves a bad precedents that might make some unforeseen concequences. Banning validators from voting: it leaves space to ban validators for good or bad reasons. Besides I checked i think they voted only on one proposal acording to smart stake analytics dashboard. So this prop won’t do much here to block the validator for voting. Financial penalties: this one is the most dangerous one IMO. It requires a lot of energy to achieve this. Code would need to be implemented and tested before it could reach mainnet. And I think devs should focus their attention to the develop of the Network instead focusing all attention how to execute this action on-chain. Tombstone validator: unless there was a direct attack to the chain itself (example spam the network, write malicious smart contract, adding malicious code to the main repo etc.). At worst they deceived their stakers which I agree it is malicious indeed but what is next course when prop like this passes? It leaves precedents that might get abused. So unless they harmed network directly (which they haven’t) i think this is too harsh. If I remember Gadikan did in a past like a…

Excerpt (1190 of 2389 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

As I stated before in a previous thread, I don’t like the idea of adding the on-chain code for tax penalties, or something similar - that adds extra complexity from the maintenance/development point of view, as @Kamikaza731 stated above, and also this is an abuse vector - imagine if a well-known team decides to make a proposal to punish some okay validator for disliking them, they probably can convince the community to vote in favour. I also don’t like slashing/tombstoning a validator for the same reasons.

I do agree though that raising awareness, changes in wallets/explorers on how these validators are being displayed and basically public shaming/calling them out is okay.

Also as I stated in the previous threat, such behaviour is not illegal (so it should not be treated as breaking the law by punishment or something), but immoral (so it can get treated same way as immoral actions are treated - by public shaming, calling out etc.)

All great points. If Melea continues to lie and steal, what do you suggest?

Yep, Leap and Trust wallet randomize validators, which is great. I wish Keplr and Cosmostation would do the same.

All of your points are valid and make sense. What do you suggest?

We appreciate the proactive approach taken to move forward with concrete actions following the previous discussion phase in this forum (link to the topic here ). To provide a TL;DR on the challenges highlighted in the earlier discussion, our perspective leaned toward the necessity of a broader governance reform, ideally leading to a constitution for the Hub . Such a document would establish guidelines for validator naming practices and outline enforceable actions against non-compliant entities. We also find Melea’s actions to be problematic and believe they should not go unaddressed. While creating this constitution would require significant coordination and time, we feel that immediate, actionable steps should also be proposed to the community to define acceptable practices for validator naming . These initial actions could serve as the foundation for a future governance framework constitution. Proposed Rules: To clarify our position on this matter, we propose the following principles to define an “acceptable range” for validator naming: • Validators should use the ASCII character set exclusively (non-standard symbols and special characters would be non-compliant). •…

Excerpt (1196 of 4179 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Can echo many, not all, of the sentiments made by those who responded here.

Though it is painful to see a validator abusing their honorable role, all of this will be mitigated through a working constitution, where we should pool our mental resources into focusing on collectively.

If only we followed someone’s lead RE this earlier, but I digress.

Would you please reach out to us at [email protected], now that we have turned into 2025 it is about time to craft a joint proposal to penalize Melea for the long dated misleading and unethical practices.

I disagree.

Whole it’s super lame to falsely advertise, it is also impossible to falsely advertise. The chain doesn’t lie.

Afaik, melea simply has not updated anything – and that’s fine.

There are no rebates on-chain. Therefore, claiming to be 0% commission is false advertising.

It is clear that the issue at hand is well known by Melea and has persisted for too long. Addressing it is essential for maintaining trust within the community. Setting clear boundaries around acceptable practices is a step in the right direction.

In coordination with the original proposer, we support the initiative to push this proposal on-chain. As always, community members will have the freedom to use their personal accounts to cast votes, ensuring a fair and democratic process.

The outlined two-step approach is well-conceived. First, proposing a validator operational framework establishes a much-needed standard for responsible operations. Following this, a retroactive penalty vote targeting specific actions that have undermined delegators’ interests ensures accountability for past practices while setting a precedent for the future.

We encourage the community to engage actively in the upcoming discussions and votes to help shape a more equitable governance framework.