[LAST CALL] CHIP : Validator Operation Agreement

Cosmos Hub Improvement Proposal (CHIP): Validator Operation Agreement Summary The purpose of this Agreement is to define a set of operational rules and expectations for bonded, active Cosmos Hub validators. Its goal is to ensure fair competition, integrity in consensus participation, and sufficient decentralisation, by establishing minimum standards of behaviour and naming, and defining consequences for infractions. Motivation Over time, the Cosmos Hub has evolved into a foundational layer of the interchain ecosystem — a network whose legitimacy and resilience depend on the legitimacy of its validator set. As validator operations have become increasingly professionalized, the absence of a shared operational framework has left space for practices that, while technically permissible, undermine the Hub’s long-term decentralisation goals and the spirit of fair participation. Two issues have become particularly visible: the emergence of duplicated active validators operated by the same entity, which can mislead the community about true decentralisation levels, and the use of validator monikers for commercial or promotional purposes, which can distort delegator perception…

Excerpt (1198 of 5804 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

A strong support to this proposal.

I also support this prop! Establishing clear operational rules is essential to uphold decentralization, fairness, and transparency within the network

Our team fully supports this proposal.

Adjusting standards and creating clear rules is a transition from kindergarten to something more serious.

I support the idea of setting clear operational standards for validators, especially to prevent duplication and the use of misleading names.
At the same time, Cosmos has always thrived on diversity and flexibility, so any new rules should allow for voluntary correction before strict sanctions are applied.
It would be helpful to clarify who is responsible for collecting and verifying evidence in cases of duplicate validators, to ensure transparency and fairness.
Overall, this proposal brings the Hub closer to becoming a more mature and accountable network.

Generally in favour of this.

I think it makes sense to specifiy 2.1 further.

Would this prohibit any whitelabel solutions because one entity is running the infrastructure even if keys are split between entities?
What is the definition of one identity? If iam running one validator as a private person and one as a corporation with multiple people, is this then prohibited or do these count as different identities?

Great idea! This airdrop meta turned out to be a very unsuccessful event for both validators and stakers. As we can see now, people delegated tokens, but most of them did not receive anything valuable in return - usual validators lost a lot of delegations to these “AirDrop” validators. The only result was increased FUD around the Cosmos ecosystem.