[PAUSED] [DRAFT] Reduce the Cosmos Hub active validator set from 180 to 100

Change log • 2026-07-13 Created initial post Summary This proposal aims to reduce the Cosmos Hub active validator set from 180 to 100 by updating the on-chain max_provider_consensus_validators parameter (provider module), and to reduce the bonded validator cap from 200 to 100 by updating max_validators (staking module), aligning both at 100. The creation of new consumer chains has been disabled at the protocol level since the gaia v27 upgrade. The two active consumer chains, comdex-1 and elys-1, are secured almost entirely by validators within the top 100 by stake, so reducing the bonded cap to 100 has minimal impact on them (see Background). Aligning both parameters also keeps the active set at 100 if the provider module is later removed, at which point the active set would revert to being governed by max_validators. The objective is to improve the long-term health, sustainability and operational quality of the validator set while maintaining a high level of security. A validator set where operators can sustainably run professional infrastructure is expected to be healthier than a large validator set containing economically unsustainable operators. A leaner…

Excerpt (1194 of 14057 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Nah this ain’t it bro.

Hey @Guinch_Roze , thanks for putting this together! We’re directionally supportive of a smaller, more sustainable validator set, and we’ve mentioned in several places that consolidation could align well with where the Hub roadmap is heading. But this isn’t just a minor change, and it shouldn’t be treated as one in a short 2-week discussion. The problem the proposal correctly identifies is that the economics at the bottom of the active set don’t work for the operators themselves. Validators securing ~2% of stake collectively can’t cover professional infrastructure, monitoring, and redundancy from the rewards that stake generates. Keeping operators in a position where validating the Hub is a money-losing hobby isn’t doing them, their delegators, or the network any favors. A right-sized set is one where every active operator can actually sustain a professional operation. However, the current economic model isn’t fixed in stone. The tokenomics redesign work underway is looking at how validators are rewarded, not just how many there are, and the future may hold more differentiated ways for operators of different sizes to participate in and earn from the Hub than the single…

Excerpt (1193 of 4325 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Guinch_Roze: This proposal aims to reduce the Cosmos Hub active validator set from 180 to 100 This could be seen as a malicious and harmful proposal for the Cosmos hub. We have seen recently major validators like Cosmostation, Citadel, and others winding down all operations and validator health has become a critical issue now. Cosmos Labs already emphasized before that there are no plans for the active set reduction, and any reduction would be done slowly and gradually, certainly not an extreme and sudden almost 50% cut of the active set. Guinch_Roze: , comdex-1 and elys-1, Why are you even mentioning these projects? They are totally irrelevant, seems by now even not listed on coingecko. Guinch_Roze: The objective is to improve the long-term health, sustainability and operational quality of the validator set while maintaining a high level of security. Really? To put an example, we are one of the few validators contributing here in the governance forum for years, helped to dismantle the AADAO and saved millions for the Cosmos hub, and now trying to support with the implementation of the VP tax, do you think eliminating validators like…

Excerpt (1199 of 4188 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you for the detailed response. I think the arguments you’ve raised are valid, particularly regarding the importance of sequencing and having proper modeling before making a decision of this magnitude. Based on your feedback, I’ll pause this proposal and wait for the results of Phase 2 of the ATOM tokenomics research, as suggested by Robo. It makes sense to revisit validator set size once we have stronger data and a broader understanding of the trade-offs involved. I also appreciate you clarifying several points that were not widely known within the community. Having more transparency around the ongoing research helps everyone better understand where this discussion fits into the broader roadmap. For now, let’s continue gathering feedback and refining the discussion so that, when the time comes, the community can make an informed decision based on data rather than assumptions. Finally, thank you to the Hub Unit for taking the time to engage on what is clearly a very sensitive topic. In my opinion, validator sustainability, decentralization and the long-term structure of the validator set are among the most important subjects for the future of the Cosmos Hub, and I’m…

Excerpt (1199 of 1246 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

The best and most comprehensive answer, to which there is nothing to even add… I fully support it!

Good idea and reasoning. I would start with 150 perhaps though.

100 is unreasonable and as a delegator I will vote no.