[PROPOSAL #76][REJECTED] Require a minimum 5% commission for all validator nodes
Retroactive post to discuss prop 76 as the original proposer did not go to the forum first. If the original author is reading this, please comment with more detail on how you believe this should enacted. Are you suggesting validators set a 5% minimum informally, or that devs add this as a parameter in the software? Also please use the forum prior to posting in the future so we have a chance to ask some of these basic questions before the post goes up. I anticipate some validators may vote no simply because they didn’t have a chance to discuss on the forum first, which I’m sure was not your intention. Mintscan link to proposal Require a minimum 5% commission for all validator nodes. Reasoning: Competition drives innovation. Innovation drives sustainability and token value. We should build a community where validators truly innovate and create value for delegators, rather than relying on their 0% commission to attract delegators. Allowing unsustainably low commission rates promotes spam and will not motivate validators to create innovative solutions for delegators, potentially stagnating the development of the Cosmos Network. Having a 5% minimum commission ensures…
Excerpt (1198 of 1850 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Most top validators have a low commission fee and does not contributes. This is an easy way to enrich them, without really incentivizing people to re-delegate (Can someone point me to a massive re-delegation that happened), as it is not clear what validators contributes to what (expect notional, sikka or sg-1).
I voted No.
I’m really against it. Some of my notes/thoughts on it: • The proposal has no preliminary discussion. The forum post was created only after the proposal went live but it already has some “for” votes. It’s a bad practice itself. • Proposal is anonymous and has the TEXT type, and it has no actor to implement it. Like, who will modify the chain in a proper way? How will it be made? What should we do to those who have <5% commission? Does it have any other corner cases? Once again, there was no discussion. • Validators with >=5% commission are incentivized to vote “for” just because it will place them in a better position than competitors. • At the same time, validators with <5% commission have nearly 36% of voting power, which makes them able to reject the proposal by themselves (not all of them vote though). • Stake is imbalanced already. Small validators are able to engage delegators at least by setting a low commission and without this stake will be more concentrated on big players that seem more reliable to users. • Even with a “minimum 5%” commission validators are able to distribute the rewards by airdrops and stuff, it doesn’t force them to take rewards to…
Excerpt (1198 of 2161 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
For reference, Proposal #12 posed a relevant question: Are Validators Charging 0% Commission Harmful to the Success of the Cosmos Hub?
There was quite a rich conversation about it on the forum here: [PROPOSAL #12][ACCEPTED] Are validators charging 0% commission harmful to the success of the Cosmos Hub?
Just a question, why not require low down maximum com (sample 95%) to avoid validators cheating their client to get all rewards?
And 5% is just like theft way. I voted NO on this.
Hey first of all I just want to say thanks for making this. All right let’s roll friends. So I actually support this proposal and it’s basically because I think that 0% validators are genuinely harmful. The only reason that I’ve been able to contribute to the hub, to Juno, to the SDK, and so many other things in Cosmos is in fact the Osmosis standard for minimum commissions. When osmosis launched, I began getting paid, and I quit my other work. Those minimum commissions literally funded notional. Other than that, we were funded on one single uniswap airdrop. That’s it. I strongly agree with the critique of this proposal that it was not discussed beforehand. That is why I intend to create a proposal on the hub that mandates the usage of this forum before making governance proposals. I also just really want to highlight the Twitter is not the best place to discuss governance. It is very easy to spread inaccurate information on Twitter, as @Thyborg , and employee of informal systems, which is a company funded by the interchain foundation, has recently done about this proposal. The reality of the situation on the cosmos hub with respect to minimum commissions, is that…
Excerpt (1194 of 1967 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
You raise a very interesting point of view here. I’m not certain that you’re right but it doesn’t feel wrong.
The concerns seem to be incentives, security and fairness. A secure system requires incentivizing validators to enact proper security protocols and having enough incentives left over for convincing delegators (investors) to lock up a portion of their wealth for an extended period of time. Validator and developer seem somewhat synonymous at times. As a Staker I love 0% commission. I feel extremely incentivized to keep all my atoms locked away securing the network. I feel my staked portion is as valuable as the validator. I feel I am adding real value to the network by compounding, leaving my funds staked to the network, and knowing that I may never remove them. I feel I am helping out pace the constant selling pressure. As a non developing validator with low commission I feel proud to have so many tokens staked to me securing the network. I’m even more proud at the extremely low churn rate of my delegators funds. I again feel I am adding real value to the network by keeping my delegators incentivized. I indeed make just enough to pay my electricity and other means of security If I were to sell. But I don’t want to sell. I believe 5% as a Staker would make me lose my sense of…
Excerpt (1198 of 2727 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
im down with 2%.
It’s not zero.
But I wouldn’t change my current yes vote and I don’t think that @thyborg should endorse individuals spreading non-factual information with ulterieor motives as he is employed at informal systems which is ultimately funded by the interchain foundation.
standards, friends.
@jacobgadikian , did you noticed you’re becoming a pinhead every single day?. I found that your sole purpose nowadays is to FUD interchain member without actually doing any good for the chain. I saw your debate with twitter guy ROB and after watching all those things I think you’re playing a victim card which is too much scary for the ecosystem. That twitter guy really raised some good claims along with Ticojonny and Wickex2. While I read the counter argument from notional, I saw Some of Notional’s counter argument is baseless and misleading. While you should respect every opinion, you and Notional actively tried to shut down every claims with hundreds of tweets without even solving the issue. There’s no solid bases that shows a 5% commission can decentralize the network. Furthermore, how the system will combat with cashbacks, NFT airdrops and token airdrops and other similar activities. Then the proposal itself is written in a poor way. I don’t know, how you voted Yes on such a poor proposal with so much experience. I saw you voted NWV on some non spammy proposals but in this case you voted for the proposal. I know why you voted YES. That’s your choice, I will not interfere that.…
Excerpt (1199 of 1613 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Thank you for contributing to an excellent and positive discourse in the cosmos ← sarcasm
Unlike yourself I prefer to discuss issues and not people but unfortunately, people who like to discuss people and find that useful, because they’re the root cause of the issue, well you know they don’t mind if you call me a pinhead or what no worries bro I got you.
I think that we can do far, far better on civility.
You could really do some civil conversation without shaming others. The way you express your issues makes it more complex and complicated. I guarantee, this will not solve your issues. It will rather create a big mess. Hope you understand and try to be civil instead of throwing screenshots and bashing them everywhere.
Screenshots are very important context to the situation I’m sorry that you don’t like them here’s another
Thank you @Thyborg
Let’s keep this discussion on-topic. Also please try to avoid any ad hominem aspersions. Save it for twitter.
0% is needed in order to mantain the core principles of the Cosmos ecosystem, in particular I’m refering to the low entry barrier. Indeed, as we have seen in the past year or so, that low entry barrier is perceived as freedom. Airdrops, bridges, fees, interchain security for big or small projects. Almost everything is free and customisable and there is no differentiation of indivuals, like there is in other chains where just VCs can participate to the party. We indivudals had our free entry in the cosmos ecosystem and validators deserve the same opportunity. 0% fees is the most important feature for any new unknown validator to stand out from the competition. The more validators the better, because competition within validators is good for the security of the chain! If we want to make validators engaging in the building process, we need to enhance our community awareness on what validators have done and their roadmap. It’s like acting in the demand side, or better in the delegation process. To implement your idea, which is good Jacob, individuals should be able to choose validators according to their past performance and roadmap for the community. The selection process of…
Excerpt (1192 of 1882 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Well I don’t really like it on Twitter either, and when that becomes a part of a governance discussion on Twitter I think it’s appropriate to make sure that people are able to see and understand what’s being said outside of this forum. I’m sorry it’s distasteful, I agree strongly on that matter. However, I think that this is important information surrounding the proposal. The way that validators and groups affiliated with the community conduct themselves let’s say on Twitter, unfortunately should likely be mentioned here because this is a place where people come for information about validators. I don’t like getting dudleyed and you wont find me dudleying anyone-- no matter what anyone says, I don’t talk to people like that. I hope that you will take this in the respectful manner it is intended in. I am using the Dudley case as an example but I do intend to continue to bring governance discussion content to this forum. Just for example, if a validator or another community actor were to behave on in a certain manner on Twitter, or post nonfactual information, that would reflect badly on the entire community, and I think it’s a good thing to make that information more…
Excerpt (1194 of 2213 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
@jacobgadikian The discussion about Vulcanize’s contract with the ICF is fair game on the forum. I’d just ask that you make new thread if you want to have that conversation. It does a disservice to the important topic of validator commissions if we get into that here.
I think that’s fair and when I get to the office I’ll jiggle around content as described, should be an hour or two and thanks for the feedback I also plan to continue to bring Twitter here, but not only the negative stuff, but the brilliant stuff as well. To do proper discussion we’re going to need both. @hxrts just wanna let you know I’ve taken all unrelated screenshots out. Screenshots directly related to 76, there are going to be more of those, I’m afraid, and if that is an issue, please opine. Accuracy matters for governance discussions, and what I don’t want to see happen is gov discussions get mired w/ inaccurate information distributed on twitter – or anywhere. twitter.com Jacob Gadikian @gadikian Hi @RobbStack_sats @Cryptocito @WhiteMarlin4 @JDLorax @Thyborg_ No, @notionaldao isn't VC funded No, thyborg shouldn't be pushing validators to abstain from votes based on false information https://t.co/ZOsEOekVBb 11:44 AM - 28 Aug 2022 15 1 Screen Shot 2022-09-01 at 3.15.30 PM 604×798 191 KB Screen Shot 2022-09-01 at 3.21.29 PM 458×1780 107 KB Screen Shot…
Excerpt (1197 of 1679 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
Hey guys - wrote up my thoughts and sharing it along for the wider Cosmos community in case it helps decision-making.
docs.google.comCosmos Hub - State of the Ecosystem
Views on a Minimum Commission Floor on Cosmos Hub Introduction: The implementation of minimum commission floors has become commonplace within the Cosmos ecosystem. With chains including Osmosis, Juno and Evmos having implemented this mechanism - it...
twitter.comAnon #418 {S = S}
As someone above pointed out, this conversation has been going for a while . In my experience, we often forget that everything changes and is changeable, i.e. nothing is permanent. When we forget this the ability to experiment and innovate suffers. I generally feel that 0% commission is at best neutral, if not harmful. It would be interesting to see an analysis of how stake shifts around once formerly 0% commission validators raise their rates. We’ve seen over the years that stake is sticky, i.e. it doesn’t get redelegated much. Delegators tend to “set it and forget it”, so I can understand the allure of setting a 0% commission to gain attention. Yet over the long term, I don’t feel this is a healthy or sustainable approach for the validator, network and delegator, who relies on the network’s security to protect their interest. Many smaller, independent, yet very capable operators are operating on tight margins. I know this because I started Chainflow with zero capital and have bootstrapped it into existence over the past 5 years (since the earliest Cosmos testnet days). We haven’t taken any outside investment. These operators need to be compensated for the value they…
Excerpt (1192 of 1667 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗