[PROPOSAL #66][ACCEPTED] Increase Active Validator Spots To 175

As a joint initiative between Blocks United and Secure Secrets, we propose that Cosmos increase the number of active validator nodes from 150 to 175. Summary Smaller validators are being pushed out by large investors coming into the validator space and we believe that diversity of validator ownership is essential to decentralization. When we (Blocks United) spun up our ATOM validator node in October 2021, the minimum number of tokens staked on the node to make it into the active set was only 45, or the equivalent of $1300. As of March 24, 2022 the minimum number of tokens staked on the node to make it into the active set is over 65,000 or around $1,885,000. There are currently over 300 Cosmos nodes and only the top 150 earn block rewards. That 150 is the active set. The largest validators are bringing in institutional money from places like JP Morgan and pushing the small validators out, and that is NOT good for decentralization. You notice the same large validators on so many chains. Rationale Diversity in node ownership is healthy and necessary. Allowing more validators into the active set allows the “mom and pop shops” to participate. This will give delegators…

Excerpt (1195 of 4269 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hey BlocksUnited!

Thanks for taking the time to post your idea to the forum. Sounds like you’re interested in making a parameter change proposal, where you’ll increase the MaxValidators size from 150 to 175 in the staking subspace.

In general, we’re noticing that if you frame your post here as an idea for a proposal vs. an open discussion, it’s easier to get responses from other community members. If that’s something you want to do, let us know, and we can help with the following:

• Change the title to reflect that this is a proposal draft in development. You can refer to the suggested naming conventions post for this.
• Tweet about it from the Cosmos Gov Twitter account to bring more attention to it.

Let us know!

Yes, that would be wonderful. Please check out the changes and my tweet and provide any guidance that you think would help. Thanks!

We at Secure Secrets are looking for this as well, we have about $1.2 Million staked with us but fell out of active set. I think increasing the set is helpful.

How many validators does ATOM currently have and how would adding more work with Tendermint?

Great questions. There are over 300 nodes, but only the top 150 are validators that earn block rewards. More validators does mean increased time to come to consensus, which is why i suggested perhaps only 25 more ACTIVE nodes.

Another option is perhaps to incentivize delegators to stake with smaller validator nodes, but not sure how to accomplish that without becoming Polkadot or Harmony.

This discussion is definitely healthy though.

I support this proposal 110% . Crypto was designed to be decentralized, imho to give us little guys the chance. Of course as more money flows in we loose some of that. But we have the chance to not allow these insutitutions control of this financial network for the first time and should act so accordingly. This is what cryptos about imho.
Im all for adding another 25 validators thanks for bringing this propsition to the table blocksunited

How do we actually make this a proposal… to add 25 active validator spots?

Let us know what’s next steps to move this on-chain and share in social media so we can get exposure to this proposal.

In terms of making and passing a proposal there are both social and technical things you’ll need to do. Technically you will have to send a transaction that contains a json describing which parameter you want to change in which subspace. The Cosmos Hub documentation describes this process and you can also talk to other people who have submitted a proposal for help. The Hypha team who submitted Proposal 63 (including me) would be happy to help on the technical side. Socially you’ll need buy-in and support from ATOM holders and delegators, since those are the votes that will be required to hit quorum and then pass the proposal itself. I’d recommend actively talking to other validators to get their advice and input on how you can refine the proposal into a form that would be most likely to pass. Once you feel you’ve garnered enough support you’ll be ready to send it on-chain. Some folks who run validators talked about this exact issue in Cryptocito’s recent Splitting ATOM show so you may wish to get in touch with them! As you continue talking, gaining input, and refining your proposal I’d recommend editing your single top level post and keeping a change-log much like Proposal…

Excerpt (1197 of 1649 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I made the mistake of starting a new proposal post this morning, instead of changing and adding to this one. I can’t figure out how to delete the post I made this morning. Will you give me a little guidance?

I think you should have access to this menu to delete a topic, but I can also do that for you as a moderator if you don’t have access!

I don’t have the wrench as a setting option. Yes, if you’d delete it for me that would be great.

Do you receive reply emails?

I don’t get emails but I keep the forum open all the time since I’m managing it right now. I believe you can adjust your notification settings in your personal preferences.

Changelog: March 25, 2022 the draft was changed to reflect an actual proposal, a clear summary, rationale, precedent and description of governance votes. March 29, 2022 the draft was changed to voting period as we posted bond. March 31, 2022 added: VOTE USING KEPLR VIEW THE ON CHAIN PROPOSAL The OG validators gathered on March 30, 2022 to discuss this proposal 66 -Brian from Tendermint Inc, who’s also on the board of the Interchain Foundation -YouTuber Cryptocito (currently runs a Cosmos node) -Mircea from Cephalapod (currently running relayers and validator nodes on 9 different networks) -Dimi from StakeFish (currently running validator nodes on 25 different networks) -Gavin from Figment (currently running validator nodes on 40 different networks) -Naman from AssetMantle contributed toward the end of the call -Listen to the call here: https://twitter.com/cosmoshub/status/1508837597237452807 Reasons against -may slow block times, which is unlikely -fundamental change to consensus could have unintended consequences -inexperienced validators may lack the technical skills required -large validators don’t want to share block rewards Reasons for -this…

Excerpt (1196 of 2179 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

We at stakefish are in favor of increasing the validator set allowing new validators to join. Let us know if you need any help

That’s wonderful to hear. We hope to submit the proposal within the next 24 hours, so please vote yes and let the world know you voted yes. Thanks again!

Since we haven’t seen any opposition on this we will submit a proposal on-chain

Hi, my 5ct opinion here is that we should consider to add in the proposal that we should increase the Validator Set not before 1st of Sept 2022.
Proposal 54 ended 08/31/2021, to be aligned with the Cosmos whitepaper to increase per year.

What the rationale behind 25? Is there an estimate on block time change here?

I am leaning in favor of this proposal, but I have a couple asks/concerns: • I’d like to see this proposal (all proposals, in fact) outline the risks of adopting the proposal. What risk are we taking on? Why might we not want to do this? What could go wrong? Why should we consider voting “no”? • I’d like to see this proposal (all proposals, in fact) outline the outcomes we’re hoping to achieve if this proposal is adopted and how we’re going to measure and when if we achieved said outcome. For instance, the rationale given is to diversify node ownership. Who’s to say the next 25 validator spots won’t end up being taken by similarly large validators and not available to “mom and pop shops”? Will this proposal achieve that outcome? I’m doubtful, but in favor regardless based on having seen the original whitepaper and other prior similar proposals so thank you for linking those. This is outside the scope of this specific proposal, but I’d also like to see how and where this community follows up in general on previous proposals to see if we achieved the outcomes we were aiming for and why or why not. If anyone can point me to if/how this is done today, I’d appreciate it.…

Excerpt (1196 of 1235 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Actually, the last proposal only came out after 2 years after the one before that:

[PROPOSAL #54][ACCEPTED] Increase Max Validator Set Size to 150 Parameter Change

Originally, the validator set size in the Cosmos Hub was capped at 100, ordered by total delegated Atoms. The Cosmos whitepaper stated that the validator set size should increase 13% per year until it hits 300 validators as a cap. In July 2019, proposal #10 suggested a new way to set the validator set size: through governance. This proposal also extended the active validator set size to 125, which still is the current network parameter. Almost two years have been passed since this last set va…

Technically if we are looking at increments of 25 seats year over year, we should be looking at 200 Seats right now.
But this is more about what the floor of entry is that is why adding 25 seats, for now, is good.

@marbar With respect to blocktimes there should be no increase from the data I have at hand (from external networks), Technically we could have 300 Seats and there should be no difference in blocktime.

The last two proposals that added validators were both only 25. Adding 50 might have a lower chance of passing. Once 25 are added and the community sees that all is well and that they have more choice in delegating ATOM, another proposal can always be presented to add another 25 or even another 50 active validators. Only adding 25 again is just baby steps.

Love your feedback. Thank you. The last part you mentioned about following up on past proposals to see how effective they were is something that can be addressed by current proposal 63: Mintscan - Chain explorer by COSMOSTATION and [PROPOSAL #63][ACCEPTED] Activate governance discussions on the Discourse forum using community pool funds

Hope you can help me understand this better
How is this going to prevent the top from getting money from institutional investors and decentralize the network? The small ones will still struggle unless they can offer something the big guys cannot.
Would it make more sense that rewards are given to the validators from 25-200? Small validators would then have incentive to ensure they are providing a great service, uptime, insurance, etc. to keep delegators and avoid being jailed.
Note: I just pulled the 25-200 our of the air some analysis would help.

This proposal will do nothing to discourage institutional money from flowing into the space, but opens the door wider to competition. Maybe they’re underdogs, but small shops can become medium sized validators. Don’t count us out.

And more equal distribution of voting power will strengthen the network.

This is keeping with the network’s eventual target of 300 active validators. From what I’ve read, 300 validators is the spot where network speed begins to decline.

We feel that adding 25 more active validators is a modest proposal.

Redistribution of rewards on the other hand is a slippery slope. Crypto is a free market. Perhaps a separate proposal for the Interchain Foundation to stake treasury funds with the bottom 1/3 or 1/2 of the active validator set?

As much as I respect cosmos devs and the original plan outlined in the whitepaper, governance trumps all of that. That’s the purpose of governance- to decide what route the chain takes. Obviously there are good reasons for incrementally increasing the active validator set as well as capping the amount of validators, (and all of those should be outlined), but should governance choose to do it differently so be it.

Very much in favor of this proposal. Validating POS chains has been quite the money maker, especially during this last bull run. Unfortunately this brings in institutions (looking to fund validators as well as join in delegating), which consolidates a lot of voting power to the top 10 validators. And like you said, you see these same guys in the tops 10 for almost every cosmos ecosystem chain. Many of them are active members/contributors to the cosmos ecosystem, but this does go against some of the core principles I attribute to cryptocurrency. Like you guys, I grew interested in becoming a validator shortly after being introduced to cosmos, but quickly realized I’ve been priced out of all currently operating chains. I could try to get involved in a chain from genesis, but it would be a significant financial risk for me. Still something I’m considering/learning about, but I am pretty pessimistic about it ever coming to fruition. I don’t see any downsides to increasing the active validator set. Consensus times should be negligible, and I think decentralization/dispersing voting power is more important anyway. As a side note- I appreciate everything BlocksUnited does for the…

Excerpt (1193 of 1510 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I would humbly request to at least following details should be provided with on chain proposal;

• What
• Why
• How (could be optional)
• And a brief of positive and negative impact
  This is to ensure that documentation remains on the chain in far future and does not rely on external resources controlled by single entity.
  Secondly, this would help educate community and provide them relatively better view therefore would be an educated decision while accepting or rejecting it.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a validator.

Gm.

Increasing the number of validators is a quick first step to the problem outlined but we should consider a mechanism that would rotate the active set. It seems this would be a more algorithmic way of achieving validator diversity.

Thanks for the feedback.

The OG validators gathered on March 30, 2022 to discuss this proposal 66 -Brian from Tendermint Inc, who’s also on the board of the Interchain Foundation -YouTuber Cryptocito (currently runs a Cosmos node) -Mircea from Cephalapod (currently running relayers and validator nodes on 9 different networks) -Dimi from StakeFish (currently running validator nodes on 25 different networks) -Gavin from Figment (currently running validator nodes on 40 different networks) -Naman from AssetMantle contributed toward the end of the call -Listen to the call here: https://twitter.com/cosmoshub/status/1508837597237452807 Reasons against -may slow block times, which is unlikely -fundamental change to consensus could have unintended consequences -inexperienced validators may lack the technical skills required -large validators don’t want to share block rewards Reasons for -this proposal draws attention to the ecosystem’s core values -will increase decentralization -would drastically lower the barrier to entry -will give lesser experienced validators the chance to learn technical skills -if inexperienced validators lack the skills, more experienced validators will join and…

Excerpt (1195 of 1743 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

We at Stakely created the proposal to increase the validator set to 150 back in September (proposal #54) and we support this proposal as well.

Adding 25 validator spots seems a reasonable amount, considering the time that passed since the last update and the capital required to enter into the active set.

Hey all!

We noticed that this proposal went on-chain with no text description aside from a link to this forum thread.

The top-level post has continued to evolve after the proposal went on-chain which means that people voting at different times might have referenced different information and be unsure of what the exact proposal description is.

It’s important that the exact proposal text be recorded at the time of going on-chain so that voters know exactly what their vote means at the time they cast it. Further information or discussion can continue in comments.

Going forward, we recommend pinning the text on IPFS as a lasting record of the final proposal text. For posterity, we pinned the text at the time of going on-chain

ipfs.io/ipfs/QmTemvs1TbR26f1XgRpePXqBmiixyK9FZiyb2VxyY5fKbd

Yikes! That was an honest oversight on our end. Can we add the forum text to the proposal?

No, there is no mechanism to change the text of a proposal once the transaction to submit it has been sent.

That’s a total bummer and great learning experience.

Yeah, i heard those blockchain transactions are immutable. Hahaha.

can we at least make on-chain proposal titles more descriptive in the future? so vague. we can do better.

I’m starting to think we maybe should have discussed longer and thought abuot 200. Considering thats where we were planned to be at, maybe we should start discussions on when that would be. Traditionally, people want to hold off for long periods of time before adding to the set again, but I think with the hub we should take this seriously as more big money comes in and just buys validator spots.

OmniFlix proved its possible if we make this a priority.

Our bad. Apologies. Let’s hope the proposal still passes!

I agree with you, but our thinking was that adding only 25 validators is modest and should easily pass. Adding only 25 validators will take the cost of spinning up an active ATOM node from $2,000,000 down to only $1000! That’s also why we felt adding only 25 would suffice for now.

Yeah 25 is definitely an easier sell. But as we’re seeing, the battle is already on and it’s going to be a tough one. That $1000 will rise very quick as we get approach the expansion date. But either way this is still great and thank you for taking the initiative on this.

Thanks so much. I wish we had spent more time on the title and description before submitting the proposal on chain, but it is what it is. Please spread the word on social media and tell people about the proposal. It’s so important. Thanks!

a good idea, better for increasing decentralization.

Please spread the word and tell every ATOM holder you know. We need votes.

How about delegation programs to incentivize new Validators to join the active Set? How can new Cosmos support groups apply a proposal to receive delegations from the foundation?

By chance did you listen to the OG validators call? The Twitter link to that chat is up in the proposal description. They talked about the new community pool being separate from the foundation and that new proposals to distribute community pool funds could go to small validators, or that individual validators could apply for a delegation from the community pool. The community pool has to get set up first, from what I understand, and then it will take form from there.

Just some more insight onto this particular upgrade! The gov/groups module updates necessary to do this are roadmapped to be part of Cosmos SDK v0.46 in the v8-Rho upgrade, not v7-Theta (which is the one currently in voting period. The idea is for governance to be able to control any kind of transaction if the proposal-maker structures it properly, in contrast to how we currently only have 4 specific proposal types (Signaling, Community Spend, Param Change, Software Upgrade). In the Fireside chat they theorize about having an account controlled by the governance module and the ability for a proposal to delegate ATOM from that account to a validator. These features are far enough in the future that it’s hard to say precisely what that would look like and how many steps it might take to get there. With the groups module, you could also do something like sending ATOM from the Community Pool to a new DAO that is meant to delegate to up-and-coming validators. All this to say that there are a variety of ways that the Hub could use Community Pool funds (which are already separate from the Interchain Foundation) to help out smaller validators but the timeline is a bit longer and…

Excerpt (1195 of 1329 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗