Come Stop by The Cosmonauts' Corner - New Validator Online
Hello fellow Cosmonauts! We are pleased to announce our validator, The Cosmonauts’ Corner, is live! As longtime members of the Cosmos community, our pledge is to connect and serve the cosmos, starting with $ATOM. Our goal is simple: vote transparently and contribute to burn. Here’s a brief introduction of what we are about: Voting Policy ____________________________________________________________________________ Our policy will be to cast a vote within 24 hours of a proposition going on chain to ensure we play our part in helping reach quorum. Our voting policy will be as follows: “Yes” vote: • Chain updates / upgrades • Bug fixes • Legitimate signaling proposals • Any legitimate community proposals that do not lead to material changes to the chain “No” vote • Any proposal that asks for allocation of funding, of any kind • All others that aren’t directly categorized here “Veto” vote • Scam proposals • Any proposal that unfairly and disproportionately causes harm or loss to a specific individual or group We will never cast a vote to abstain, except in cases where there is a conflict of interest involving our validator. All votes can be changed…
Excerpt (1197 of 3490 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Wow this is a cool idea and a really unique incentive!
Congratulations on the launch. Your public voting policy and commission-burn commitment raise an interesting wallet UX question: when users compare validators, which information do you think should be visible directly on the selection screen?
Commission, uptime, governance participation, voting policy, and contributions to the ecosystem can be difficult to compare in one place. We’re collecting feedback on how validator information could be presented more clearly in Gem Wallet, so I’d be interested in which three details you consider most important for delegators.
Congrats on the launch!
Anzus_GemWallet:Commission, uptime, governance participation, voting policy, and contributions to the ecosystem can be difficult to compare in one place. We’re collecting feedback on how validator information could be presented more clearly in Gem Wallet, so I’d be interested in which three details you consider most important for delegators.
Participation rate + uptime above everything IMO.
That’s the basic job as a validator. Everything is just marketing strategies for making money with the node. Not that those aren’t important or valuable, and obviously validators have a business to run. But at the end of day, the question comes back to: do you make the blocks and do you cast the votes?
One thing I could suggest is instead of listing by voting power in depending order (largest at the top), list it by ascending order (smallest at the top)
Could apply some basic filters like active set only, or only show nodes above 10 staked, etc
Thank you! I am super excited to be here!
Thanks, this is exactly the kind of concrete feedback we were looking for. Prioritizing uptime and governance participation makes sense since those reflect whether a validator is consistently performing its core responsibilities.
Listing smaller active validators first is also an interesting approach, particularly when combined with minimum-stake and active-set filters to prevent clutter. I’ve noted these points for the team—appreciate the thoughtful response.
Big welcome to our wonderful validator community!
Wandering_Cosmonaut: Participation rate + uptime above everything IMO. Congratulations on the launch! And you’re mostly right — if a validator isn’t signing blocks and isn’t voting, nothing else about them matters much. Where I’d gently push back is on “everything else is marketing.” @Anzus_GemWallet asked for three things, and I’d say uptime, participation, and then something that tells you who you’re actually delegating to. Once you’ve filtered for the validators doing the basic job properly, you’re usually left with a long list that looks identical on paper — similar commission, similar uptime, similar voting record. At that point the tiebreaker is whatever you happen to care about, and a wallet that only shows the first two numbers isn’t helping anyone choose. For us that thing is where the electricity comes from — our nodes run on solar energy. Plenty of people will think that’s irrelevant to block signing, and that’s fair enough. But it’s a real fact about how we operate rather than a number, and it’s the honest reason someone would pick us over an identical-looking validator two rows further down the list. We did our own introduction over here if you’re…
Excerpt (1194 of 1847 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
That’s helpful context, thanks. When the basic numbers look similar, a short description of the validator could make choosing less confusing. Would a brief “About this validator” section with links to more information cover what you have in mind?
voidstake:For us that thing is where the electricity comes from — our nodes run on solar energy
That’s cool! If it makes it more sustainable both for your node and the earth then that’s good enough for me!
In theory yes, a description would be nice but you have to consider UI.
For example:
This is Keplr validator selection on mobile.
Where would the descriptor text go without
-
Significantly reducing validator choices visible on screen
-
Having text that either makes it look cluttered, hard to read, or both?
I think it should be the node owner’s responsibility to make their description attractive and to the point.
Maybe the comission figure as a descriptor text below the node moniker and a “Details” right beside the arrow that leads straight to the description is a good compromise.
Good point about the limited space on mobile. Keeping the list simple and putting the description behind a “Details” option sounds like a sensible compromise. That’s helpful feedback, thanks.