[PROPOSAL 797] [Passed] - Increase the validator set of cosmos hub to 180 from 175

Problem Currently, the validator set size in the Cosmos Hub is 175, and the last validator has 77K Atom delegated to them (at the time of writing) Which translates into 1 million USD worth of Atom. This higher requirement barred many Cosmos community validators from validation on the HUB. Proposed solution Increasing the validator set to 200 from 175 can solve this problem. Originally, the Cosmos whitepaper stated that the validator set size should increase 13% yearly 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. Governance votes The following items summarize the voting options and what it means for this proposal: YES - You approve this increase in the validator set to 200 from 175. NO - You disapprove of this increase in the validator set to 200 from 175. NO WITH VETO - A ‘NoWithVeto’ vote indicates a proposal either (1) is deemed to be spam, i.e., irrelevant to Cosmos Hub, (2) disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or (3) violates or encourages violation of the rules of engagement as currently set out by Cosmos Hub governance. If the number of ‘NoWithVeto’…

Excerpt (1199 of 1421 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Welcome to the forum! A couple recommendations on formatting your proposal to make it easier to read and clearer: • The title should probably be in present tense “Increase the validator set of Cosmos Hub to 200 from 175” to indicate that it’s up for debate. Past tense “Increased” implies that we have already done it. • A clear problem statement and proposed solution separate from the context. You’ve laid out an explanation of the whitepaper and Proposal #10 but the actual description of the proposal doesn’t clearly say that you want to change the set size. • Correct false information - “also extended the active validator set size to 125, which still is the current network parameter.” is not true. I think you copied this from Proposal #54 but it’s no longer the case Past discussions: Block explorer: Proposal 10 [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…

Excerpt (1198 of 2846 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Love the follow up. Thank you.

Thank you for the suggestions, I have updated it.

Increasing the validator set by gov is not a permanent solution as I believe the same thing will happen again this time, the minimum stake will drop to a few thousand and rise up again to these levels.

After concluding this prop, we should all devise a method to solve the problem mathematically.

Hi! When are you planning to put this on chain to vote? We are doing some analysis to think through the pros and cons in the form of a Swiss Booklet but given folks are occupied with Comsoverse events for the next week, this may take a while longer.

It’s good to remember that ICF will undelegate their 11M in couple of weeks and some validators will drop of because of this. This will drop the minimum to 40-50k ATOM and will open room for few new validators to join.

Anyway, $1.13M needed for the bottom is a huge amount and there are very good validators waiting to join Cosmos Hub so expansion surely needed at some point.

For reference, here is the minimum needed for few different chains and Cosmos Hub really is completely unique in Cosmos:

By the yast week of this month.

Do we know exactly who got how much of a foundation delegation? We have got 10 validators sitting inactive having more than 10K delegated to them. In fact, 2 of them got more than 50K atoms staked to them.

Also thanks for the comparison table.

I write here about some of the growing pains of decentralization that should be addressed: [PROPOSAL #82][REJECTED] ATOM 2.0: A new vision for Cosmos Hub Signaling/Text Thanks for the detailed roadmap, and all the new features we are looking toward with ATOM 2.0. One of my concerns as a validator is the cosmos hub still has fewer spots than the majority of the interchain chains (there are security reasons to why which i will mention later in this post), but this basically disables many cross-chain validators from participating. I would love to see if we can address this. For interchain to be successful the hub should be able to incorporate the majority of the… I think it’s a good idea to bump this to 300, as in the wider cosmos there are more validators, and many would love to join to secure the hub to provide shared security. I would also love to see if we can explore bigger numbers of lets say 1000, or 10s of thousand. This still needs to be battle-tested as tendermint does not recommend a very big set as it requires 66% to come to a consensus before a block is committed, meaning this could increase block times. I would also like further development…

Excerpt (1197 of 1230 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This is my first gov-prop I don’t know if I can propose this big of an increase when the previous history suggests an increment of 25 in one go.

There’s no technical prohibition against a larger increase. You could propose MaxValidators = 1000 if you wanted.

Socially, people seem to be accustomed to increasing by 25 at a time but there was also discussion under Proposal #66 that we should be increasing faster. Whether you can get people to vote ‘yes’ on a larger increase is really up to community sentiment. You may wish to socialize the proposal more on Twitter and other platforms to see how people feel about it.

Before we put this on-chain, let’s first answer the question why we want to do this? A commonly heard argument is “decentralisation”. But time and time again it has shown that this is nonsense… the top remains heavy with a long tail of validators fighting mainly eachother for the scraps. Funny thing is, this discussion is running on multiple chains and I am (at this point in time) against expanding the active sets until we start finding route to offload the top and strengthen the lower ranked validators. By keeping expaning the sets we give people counter-arguments like “yeah, we just expanded the set, let’s first see what happens”. Meaning that a real solution for decentralisation is getting delayed and delayed. It does have effect on storage spaces on the nodes as well as network throughput. Bumping it up too fast is not a risk I would take tbh. IF we decide to go to 300, let’s do it in small faster increments to avoid chain halts or alike. But as said, let’s first answer the question what we would like to achieve by expanding the set. Just because it was in the initial whitepaper is not enough for me to support it. And without a proper solution for the centralisation we…

Excerpt (1197 of 1302 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Expanding the validator set is not just to onboard the new validators but the value they bring to the network, (their technical skills, marketing, and awareness to name a few) I believe if more validators create awareness about the delegations and decentralization things will get better. I agree to increase the valset hasn’t done a significant dent in the large validator’s delegations but instead in the middle-to-low delegated validators.

But does this mean we should keep large validators growing more? by not introducing the new validators.

Also, we should think about the CEX validators and how much voting power they hold. If you ask me this is a helpless scenario in the decentralization.

Also, one suggestion is to increase the Nakamoto coefficient by implementing the Sifchain’s model. Where they hope to increase the coefficient to 15-20 by limiting the new delegations to large delegators.

Remember when stakecito started the validator on the hub and how much voting power he has now? I don’t think it has come from the tale. it has defiantly come from everywhere. This is the value a certain validator can bring to the network.

If val set expansions have shown one thing is that in general chains become more centralized instead of the other way around.

I am in favour of doing something “radical” to make the chain more decentralized. One way or another things are not ok as they are right now, so we can’t break too much in that perspective

I agree with the rise of some validators. But for every success-story there are multiple who have not had that luck, also because they might be offering things which are not so popular, but still really needed (participation in pre-governance discussions, all kinds of support on the tech on the backend of chains, etc). And also those we need to support imo

I think we all want to increase the number of validators both for decentralization and for the capacity that new validators can bring into the ecosystem, so I’m totally with you OP. It would be challenging to dramatically increase the number of validators overnight so the original idea for 200 is good. You’ll have my votes.

I don’t necessarily think that increasing number of validators will improve the Nakamoto coefficient but that is another discussion and potential future proposal to think through.

We agree that chain expansions haven’t historically done much for the Nakamoto Coefficient. The only way to “enforce” decentralization is with delegation limits, or caps on voting power. Another idea is to allow for varying commission rates based on percentile in the active set (with lower vals having a lower min commissions). However, those discussions are for another time. We support this expansion proposal because it undeniably lowers the barrier for entry into the active set & provides an incentive for new validators to actively contribute to the Hub. Especially if that barrier to entry can be overcome via a foundation delegation that is given based on that validator’s contributions. Otherwise, only active validators will be incentivized to contribute. We feel this proposal is especially relevant now that the ICF has made it clear that validators will only be eligible for upcoming foundation delegations if that delegation pushes them into the active set. While it is great to know that the minimum will drop dramatically to 40-50k once the existing ICF foundation delegations are removed, that is still a barrier to entry of $500k at current prices (~$12.50/atom), which is…

Excerpt (1198 of 1955 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

This I do agree on. It certainly lowers the barrier. However, as long as the argument “we just expanded the set, so stop working on decentralisation initiatives” isn’t used, then I am ok.

Yeah, totally agreed.

Leonoors, happy to chat more off the forum about decentralization efforts. We are very invested in continuing that conversation. Feel free to send me a DM @KleomedesDAO.

Some may be concerned that network speeds slow as the validator set grows, because more nodes need to come to consensus. Smaller steps forward might be advisable vs huge increases.

Valid points, but cosmos should be the one to expand with the biggest set over any chain.

Network speed is not the biggest issue. I have seen a rough guestimate somewhere about the impact being nearly negligible in terms of block times.

With the increase of 25, it will add only a couple of ms to a block.

I really dont see any issues with increasing the set

Hey guys, I was wondering why Cosmos Hub has capped the number of Validators.

It would be nice to have unlimited Validators available at Cosmos Hub, so a large number of people could be Validators & security will be enhanced.

Would hugely appreciate the set increase that could give us a shot at reaching the set. Hope it passes if it makes it on chain. :). Highlander. ChainTools validator.

@lexa is there a good timing to get this in chain?

I think It would be put on chain in the coming week

Timing is really what you make of it - socializing and promoting can be a lot of work but the idea itself has been around for so long that maybe this prop won’t be hard to promote

As you’ve probably seen on the forum and Twitter, folks have a lot to think about with ATOM 2.0 and the Charter draft. It’s hard to predict whether that means people will be more engaged in governance and interested in voting vs so preoccupied with other work that this slips through the cracks.

If y’all feel confident in your ability to socialize it and encourage stakeholders to vote, I personally think it’s better to move the thought forwards and gain some momentum than let it idle.

Yeah, I think that in order for this prop to get the attention it deserves, we should not have it go live during voting for ATOM 2.0. However, I do think the chain expansion is somewhat prudent right now since we are undergoing a new ICF delegation round soon. This would really maximize the opportunity for new validators to enter the set with the awarded delegation + minimal bootstrapping on their own. Although the exact amount for each delegation is unknown… we can infer it using the info from the new delegation policy. First, they plan to delegate at minimum 10.36 million ATOM (70% of 14.8million owned by ICF). Next, they plan to delegate ATOM based on the point policy they came up with (using the formula: total ATOM delegated by ICF divided by total points earned by all eligible validators). There are 31 criteria total so assuming a validator hits each one, they can get up to 31 points each (this isn’t a hard cap, they can get more, but lets just simplify things here). Assuming that 155 validators apply (since top 20 cannot), and each gets 31 points, that comes down to 4805 points total. We may have some validators who aren’t in the set apply, but that shouldn’t mess…

Excerpt (1198 of 2024 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

+1

I like your thoughts and putting multiple pieces of the puzzle together to create more than just 1+1=2.

Kudos.

And I am supporting your opinion as well. Expanding before the delegations hit is a good move.

I agree with your thoughts,

But I don’t think a validator can apply against 31 points, if I am not mistaken validators only can apply against 1 point.

A validator can earn at least 1 point for each of the criteria listed. At least that is how the ICF policy currently reads (unless I misread it).

Hello all and proposal author,

I am for this increase in valdiator sets. YES

Thanks for your support.

For now the bottom dropped to 50k ATOM. If validator manages to collect for example 20k ATOM and is very productive in others chains and in engineering side, it is very easy to get in to active set with ICF delegations.

Probably takes few months after this before the bottom creeps up closer to 80k and this proposal might be needed.

Should we consider discussing this proposal again, given that the 1) bottom of the active set is more than 80k atom and 2) it would highly likely increase when ICF would distribute its delegations for the delegations program?

My opinion: I am all in favour, as the current cutoff line (which is at around $1m right now) makes it practically impossible for smaller teams to join without external support, meaning only the big teams can get active.

Can you help me put this on-chain. @lexa

I want to point out now that that ‘bottom of the set’ has been fluctuating a ton lately - down to 40k ish, up to 100k. Where is the data on how the threshold of ATOM changed after we last expanded it? Was that change lasting? Or did we add more small players into a game where they are still not able to rise in the set and be sustainable? Something that has come up a lot in conversations about Interchain Security is that the bottom of the set is really not profitable - many of them are just barely breaking even (if that). Personally, I’m not in favour of introducing more competition into a business where the smaller entities are already under stress. Especially as Replicated Security picks up and we start onboarding consumer chains, meaning validators will need to be running multiple nodes to participate on the Hub. Neutron has projected that they want to onboard at the end of April, so it’s a terrible time to throw new validators into the set. They will pretty immediately need to validate two chains with unfamiliar technology (very few of the inactive validators participated in Game of Chains or are present in the Replicated Security persistent testnet). I personally don’t…

Excerpt (1197 of 2174 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

it’s a terrible time to throw new validators into the set.

We have validators in inactive set that were there for a while and are just a bit short to get into the active set, so it’s not only the new validators:

изображение1050×626 44.5 KB

Additionally, we have 4 new validators who would join the active set after receiving ICF delegations (myself included) by the beginning of April, which will likely push some of the bottom validators out, causing another struggle in the bottom of the active set and likely another increase of the bar required to get active.

Considering what I mentioned above, do you think raising the active set size by 5 or 10 would be a better solution, or are you still against this idea in general?

Thank you for your detailed answer, I agree with most of the arguments. Now I do think it is not the right time to post this proposal as the HUB is in the transition phase.

But, I do not agree with the argument

lexa:

They will pretty immediately need to validate two chains with unfamiliar technology (very few of the inactive validators participated in Game of Chains or are present in the Replicated Security persistent testnet)

Mainly because it is setting a precedence that we only onboard the validators who have participated in the GoC and are working on the latest testnet. While we do know anybody with enough voting power can join the active set.

On a side note, thank you for sharing the details about how to put gov prop on-chain, I have heard there is this UI made for this thing. Do you know?

This could be a good option for UI to create governance proposals:

https://proposals.subtract.fi/

@waqarmmirza I’m not trying to set a precedent for who gets to be onboarded - far from it. I think being permissionless is an important part of our validator set, and it’s a good thing that anyone can join. Introducing code-based restrictions on who can enter the set is not my intent at all. But if ‘onboarding’ means ‘helping them succeed’ then the teams I want to succeed are teams that pay attention to the new tech and contribute to testing and making sure features are ready for the Hub. Especially with Replicated Security, one of the big strengths of the Hub is our validator set. I’m not interested in pulling for the success of validators who don’t do those things - I don’t delegate to them either. The gov UI I’ve seen is this one - https://interchaingov.com/ I haven’t successfully tested it, so this is not an endorsement! I submit all my proposals using the CLI on the testnet and then mainnet, and this UI didn’t work for me on the testnet so I was not comfortable attempting a mainnet submission with it. The usual disclaimers apply - do your own research on whether it’s reputable and safe to connect to your wallet. I make a throwaway wallet to experiment with it…

Excerpt (1192 of 1220 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you, but “setting a precedent” wasn’t directed toward you. We will wait to put this proposal on chain for a better time in the future.

Until we have a better idea of RS economics and overall stability, I personally think we should halt on expanding the validator set.

Would love to see the Hub expand the active set sometime in 2024 when we have more data to work with, and potentially a larger community pool to develop ways to subsidize smaller validators that has a net benefit for the decentralization of the Hub.

Hey everyone,

We believe that everyone had the opportunity to give their opinion since the opening of this discussion.
We are in favor of increasing the valset and expect to post a proposal later this week so that stakeholders can make their choices.

ephemeral_25

1m

Hey there,

I’d love to hear your arguments.

I think it was already brought to light that this is a terrible idea with all the incertainties ICS V1 with neutron brings.

Please enlighten us

I don’t think this will get much support right now with ICS just now going live. Would fully expect this to get rejected.

@lexa @tknox35 @ephemeral_25 @Enigma @effortcapital I hope you all are doing great, when i originally posted this idea the main concern was barrier to entry and decentralization. 1- With all the data set we can fairly state, expanding the validator set adds to the decentralization more importantly to geographic decentralization but the overall impact is not what we have all wanted, we need to re-model this around decentralization a lot of discussions is happening on the forum for how to increase the decentralization. 2- It certainly reduces the entry cost but it is short-lived After all, suppose if we go for an increase of 15 validators to the set the minimum stake would decrease to 12k and climb up to a 50-70 window in a few months. Then we delayed the proposal for ICF delegations to happen and analyzed the situation afterward. Now if we wait for the ICS and all there is no appropriate time for this proposal. Why I think this proposal should go for voting a) Most of the validators waiting in the inactive set are the reputed validators of the cosmos waiting for a chance. b) With ICS all the validators not on cosmos will lose eventually on other chains because they…

Excerpt (1197 of 1952 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

@jacobgadikian sir, would you still support this prop?

Not right now – but after Neutron’s deployment, and we see how the validator set responds to the added challenges of ICS, I’d be a maybe. Generally speaking I don’t favor validator set expansions because they increase the size of the blockchain on disk, make each node use more computational resources, and don’t change the nakamoto coefficent. specifically speaking I also think it’s important to have a set of training wheels for validators, and that means that there should be some relatively cheap spots in the validator set. The way things look right now, the hub is not a good set of training wheels. my answer to your question • currently no • later maybe no • if the validator set were to become super-super-super tough to enter (instead of current super tough) then yes lexa: I’m not trying to set a precedent for who gets to be onboarded - far from it. I think being permissionless is an important part of our validator set, and it’s a good thing that anyone can join. Introducing code-based restrictions on who can enter the set is not my intent at all. Lexa had a great reply here too. lexa: Especially as Replicated Security picks up and…

Excerpt (1199 of 2948 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

1- I think it has been already clearly explained that this does nothing regarding decentralization. 2- Entry cost is not an argument, it’s just a result of expanding the validator set. With a project already that old, is it good to have barrier of entry that blocks an anybody to be part of the validator set (to some extends)? yes. Is it enough to ensure quality and dedication from validators? no a) Too bad life’s unfair b) c) Combining both because on thing stand out: MONEY. With ICS coming we don’t even know if running RS for Neutron will be profitable, you can’t assume that they’d be missing on some profit. What if for 3 months in a row it is unprofitable and validators from the extended set can’t afford to wait this long and push a prop to stop Neutron? What if on the 4th month would have become profitable but we stopped to early the experiment? I think you get the general idea, it is not a good idea to bring weak links NOW. d) That’s a fair counter argument to the ICS issue. You can then expect bad behaviors happening when it goes live therefor validator active spots freeing. e) Too bad life’s unfair. I am none to judge a validator but perhaps if they were as…

Excerpt (1192 of 1848 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you for your condescending behavior. I opt not to comment on your reply.

Thank you for your detailed explanation, and why you think it is not a good time. There are a few things I tend to differ respectfully. But I respect your opinion.

jacobgadikian:

@waqarmmirza sir, you’re highly engaged. Are you attempting personally to enter the cosmos hub validator set? If yes, I would like to have a call with you. I think you’re the kind of person who would make the kind of validator team that would do well

Thank you for acknowledging the engagement. One thing which is very certain in the whole conversation is I am NOT trying to get into an active set.

I am an opinionated person trying to learn the cosmos for my research.

Awesome – I’m nonetheless available for a call any time.

I’m glad to see you digging into core issues so rigorously.

ephemeral_25:

e) Too bad life’s unfair. I am none to judge a validator but perhaps if they were as ‘reputable’ as you mentionned they’d be in the ICF delegation list since anyone had a chance with all the criterias that were pretty clear.

I disagree with this. Joe Abbey and Architect Nodes are two validators that readily come to mind as having been missed by the icf delegation program.

The part I do disagree with is that life’s not fair.

To improve fairness, Notional has a delegations program, and will be making delegations to improve the quality of the cosmos hub validator set.

Will schedule a call with you, thankyou you for sharing the calendar. It is my honor.

English is definitely not my main language, I am very sorry if you feel that way. Perhaps you will find sweeter answers that add to the 1/ which I did not detailed on purpose cause it was pretty well debated here: [PROPOSAL][DRAFT] (Delaying until 1/2023 after implementation of ICS) Increase the Cosmos Hub Active Validator Set to 200 Validators (from 175) Hub Proposals I see expanding the validator set as the middle ground between the status quo and some heavy-handed set of restrictions and disincentives. It is definitely not a magic pill to fix decentralization, just a potential baby step. Adding new validators to the active set has no guarantee of causing any delegator to the top 7 validators to redelegate, or driving new delegations to those new validators instead of the top 7. But while there’s no guarantee, newer validators would at least have a chance … I think I did not clearly made my point in the last sentences, there is no harm wanting to join the validator set or having personnal interest nor that I did judge you at any moment. With that said I think it’s too easy to pull that card whenever you don’t want to reply to someone. We are all here…

Excerpt (1199 of 2621 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

ephemeral_25:

There is a balance to everything, at the end of the day some will loose some will strive.

100%

ephemeral_25:

@waqarmmirza going back to your arguments in favor of decentralization, you can surely add validators, it will only dillute the ‘weakest’, 25 new validators would be less than 1.5% of total VP. You are not balancing VP at all since it is already accumulated at the top. (top 14 having more than 50%VP currently).

100%

it’s going to be key to see how ICS plays out from a validator ops perspective. Our team will be open sourcing an orchestration solution, but not on day one. On day one, we will be doing everything manually, and then we will work on automation from there. Over and over about the ics rollout I keep thinking that we will need to do a good deal of “testing in prod” – and I’m actively okay with this, that attitude is part of why I love cosmos.

I’ve said my piece here and I feel heard for the most part. I will vote ‘no’ and encourage ‘no’ votes.

I’m working on publishing an essay (another, lexa? why can’t you tweet like everyone else) exploring the issue of stake decentralization on the Hub and why I think there is a better solution for supporting Hub validators than expanding the set (which does not seem to affect stake distribution in the long run).

“Too bad, life’s fair” is not how I want to phrase it, but I think someone in this thread said something to the effect of “You’re always going to know worthy validators in the inactive set” and that that’s not a good enough reason to expand it. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Increasing will make the bottom of the set even more competitive and we will always see good teams pushed out of the set by competition.

I want to focus my energy on making the set stable, not retaining its instability at a larger scale.

ephemeral_25: English is definitely not my main language, I am very sorry if you feel that way. No problem mate, we are cool. ephemeral_25: With that said I think it’s too easy to pull that card whenever you don’t want to reply to someone. We are all here to learn something and I am the first one to ask to get challenged on my opinion. I don’t want to contest anything I am not sure 100% myself. I will choose not to make strong statements on the basis of historic data or on my gut feelings. (At the moment are; anything can not pass on the Hub if you are not from the 2 major Cosmos groups) I am not part of any of those groups, this is another reason not to contest. ephemeral_25: @waqarmmirza going back to your arguments in favor of decentralization, you can surely add validators, it will only dillute the ‘weakest’, 25 new validators would be less than 1.5% of total VP. You are not balancing VP at all since it is already accumulated at the top. (top 14 having more than 50%VP currently). Decentralization argument has been written on every single active validator set expension prop yet proven widdly false. Historically it is 100% true,…

Excerpt (1197 of 1761 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

lexa:

I want to focus my energy on making the set stable, not retaining its instability at a larger scale.

I would love to read your thoughts and learn more.

For us increasing the active set will allow new stakeholder to bring contribution to the network, new ideas to appears and reward validators that participates to the ecosystem (who are currently inactive)

Also we think that the millions of $ of $ATOM that aren’t use will better serve the network in the active set to securing it whereas having them not use.

More, the block time shouldn’t increase as they still will have a poor voting power.

This being said, we are more down to increase the active set to 190 (not to 200) AFTER the coming of Replicated Security.

During that time other validators in the inactive set will have time to learn how to deal with ICS.
However, we think that being compliant and robust is the role of a professional validator, those who deserve to be in the active set should be able to run ICS chains successfully.

With 190 validators the active set will still have a huge barrier of entry but it will be more accessible for new stakeholder to enter.

For us increasing the active set will allow new stakeholder to bring contribution to the network, new ideas to appears and reward validators that participates to the ecosystem (who are currently inactive) As said earlier, more validators does not brings more decentralization nor stakeholders/adoption. Unless one of the validator is especially knowned in other chains and have a lot of community tractions the likeliness of new delegators is 0. And that’s also part of the governance problem, new delegators are stuck to the top validators for delegations since they are mostly not educated and choose to pick ““the best””. Ideas and Contributions are already free to flow: • For ideas: You have forums, servers, channels, social medias that are free to use to express yourself • For ‘Contributions’: Everything is open source (code), it’s your choice to delegate to inactive/active val I am not seeing how expanding the active set will help/change any of that. In a sense, assuming inactive validators are contributing to the network, I do agree that they should get a piece of the cake by having a validator running. Also we think that the millions of $ of $ATOM that…

Excerpt (1195 of 3349 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Just published it here

Scaling up with conditional basic income Essays

Introduction With the launch of the replicated security functionality from the Lambda upgrade on March 15th, the Cosmos Hub has the technical capacity to establish itself as a key social and economic Hub of the Interchain. However, replicated security has a critical issue: validators are going to incur costs for running consumer chains, and consumer chains are going to need time to generate meaningful revenue. This essay explores how ATOM holders might choose to leverage existing social, fiscal…

You can now see thinking together is better than thinking only with one person. That’s the reason why group of people in Community is very important. Sharing an idea together is great for our community members. I really appreciate you for ever supported.

Yes we need more discussion about this proposals. all the community should let me know what to do I need more ideas from you guys.

Thankyou for sharing.

I see that now with Neutron being live, the active set entrance level hasn’t dropped due to validators leaving the active set, it only was increased. Here’s how many tokens you need to get into the active set, for the last 60 days. active set entrance level 3574×898 133 KB There were some drops (mostly due to validator not upgrading their node in time during an emergency upgrade on 8 May and for not running a Neutron node), but all of them were resolved quite quickly and all of these validators are now active. So in my opinion, ICS didn’t influence the active set entrance level that much, despite it costing validators more to launch additional nodes, validators and it’s getting more difficult for new validators to join the set to help securing the network. Moreover, when we got 8 jails of validators for not running a Neutron node, as I could see those new validators joining the set were signing blocks, meaning they were ready to join the set despite not being active currently, which can mean that there’s a desire from at least these validators to join, and likely there will be more to come. Therefore I suggest to resume discussing the increasing of the active set. In…

Excerpt (1197 of 1591 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

i kinda foreseen this. i mean the fact that it would not be an issue. so as mentioned before i think its a great idea

here is a revised proposition, because people are largely divided in increasing the valset, can we increase the valset by 10 and push it on-chain? It is not NVW I assume, and it gives a fair chance to this proposal.

I’m all in, and 10 seems way more safe than 25. Maybe even decreasing it to 5 and making another proposal to increase even further would even more safe, but both of them seem solid, as I am pretty sure that raising it to 25 would instantly drop the entrance level to around 1 ATOM.

Feel free to ping me if you need any assistance on actually submitting a proposal on chain or any other help is needed.

Increasing set by 5 validators seems pretty reasonable, as Cosmos Hub is growing and we need more trusted validators protecting the chain! Also, going further and checking the Inactive list we can see that Quokka Stake is pretty much trusted one with more than 100k $ATOMs in delegations, and the next few also have some potential, so maybe that’s the right time to increase the set and lower the entrance level as well a bit.

Let’s wait for 2 days to see what type of support we have. and we can push this on-chain by the start of next week with an increase of 5.

GATA DAO will support the increase of 5 spots in the validator set.

Hi there. I do not see any strong objections here, and the feedback for the last few days was overall good. Shall we proceed?

Let me know if there’s any help needed from submitting a proposal, I can help with it if that’s required.

Hey, because of my non-tech background, I have little info on how to push prop on the chain actually. I will look at it.

When I do I will share the deposit address here so everyone can chip in. Otherwise, please push the prop on-chain. and we all chip in with the deposit.

One way is to use this tool: https://app.interchaingov.com/, I never used it though but it should do the trick I guess.

Also if you want I can put it on chain on behalf of my validator, but I do not have enough tokens to push it to voting period, as all of my tokens are staked, so I’ll need someone to deposit more to put it to voting.

Which one would be the best for you?

The second option.

I am sure @Enigma @wassie @Bro_n_Bro will be able to play their part in the deposit.

Lovely. I’ll submit it on chain in a few hours then. Will post a message here once it’s in deposit period.

``` #### Problem Currently, the validator set size in the Cosmos Hub is 175, and the last validator has 113K Atom delegated to them (at the time of writing), which translates into 1.2 million USD worth of Atom. This higher requirement barred many Cosmos community validators from validation on the Hub. It is extra difficult to get into the active set with this barrier even if a validator receives delegations or tokens for their contribution (such as ICF delegations or Game of Chains/Game of NFT projects) or if they are bringing value into ecosystem in any other way. #### Proposed solution Increasing the validator set to 180 from 175 can solve this problem. Originally, the Cosmos whitepaper stated that the validator set size should increase 13% yearly 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. The decision of increasing the validator set just by 5 spots, as opposed to past proposals, was done to ensure increasing validator set would be safe. If this proposal passes, the community can later decide whether the Hub wants to allow more validators to join after analysing how this proposal…

Excerpt (1196 of 2470 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

looks good, but i will also add more reasons we discussed in the problem. how validator who has been part of Goc and have ICF funding are inactive.

If you think it I good you can add otherwise I am okay with your draft.

Okay I added some more context and updated my original post containing the description, do you think that’s better or is there something more to add?

Yes, it looks good to go.

Okay, it’s live and in deposit period: Interchain Explorer by Cosmostation. If someone from this thread can contribute by depositing, it’d be nice. I’ll also ask in validators chat to raise awareness.

Where can i find the deposit address?

There’s no deposit address, like with regular transfers, you only need to specify the proposal ID (which is 797 here) to deposit to when depositing. This service should allow it I guess: Interchain Governance

Finally, i was able to make the deposit. Prop is in the voting phase now.

Lovely.

One thing I suggest for the future, as this proposal only increases the validator set by 5 spots, as opposed to previous proposals, we (as a community) should monitor and analyse how this proposal (if it passes) will influence validator set, and if there’s more desire for validators to join (I guess that will be actually true but only time will tell), it’d be nice to bootstrap the discussion on increasing the active set again. Maybe it’s worth it to start discussing it again in a month or two after (and if) this proposal will pass, so we’ll have time to see how it would affect the validator set and if there are a lot of new validators willing to join.

Now let’s just wait and see the voting for this one.

Is it just me or is the title now proposing to decrease the set?

I was going to go know for the usual reasons, and I guess I just want to ask fellow participants how they’re feeling about this one I read the comments from Cosmos voice and it is true that it’s a fairly negligible difference. I would love it if these five new validators would run Neutron nodes and ICS nodes generally.

It’s “increasing to 180 from 175”, not “increasing from 180 to 175” so it’s all good.

My point of view is that I agree that it’s a small difference, but I also agree with the concerns raised by Lexa above, about how unpredictable it can be with ICS launch. Neutron launch didn’t make any difference towards the active set (other than 8 validators getting jailed and quickly restoring), but this may change with more consumer chains launch (we have Stride upcoming at least), so it might be unsafe raising the active set by 25, as this would drop the entrance barrier to a really small amount (as of now, 200th validator has 1168 ATOMs staked, and I am pretty sure not all of the validator have their nodes running, so the barrier would likely decrease not to this value, but even more).
I am pretty sure a lot of new validators would love to join, but it seems to be that it’s safer to do it gradually, increasing active set by smaller amounts periodically rather than doing a one big change. But there’s a lot of desire for newer validators to join, so not increasing it seems like cutting of a lot of nice validators who can bring more value.

There’s a mistake in the ‘Governance votes’ section of this proposal’s description:

YES - You approve this increase in the validator set to 200 from 175. NO - You disapprove of this increase in the validator set to 200 from 175.

As per the title, there should be 180 instead of 200.

That’s my bad, unfortunately I cannot change it anymore once it’s posted. Sorry for misleading.
The title and the overall description and the parameter change should have the correct values though.

OK, thanks for explanation.

Does increasing the number of validators to 180 from 175 make any difference. After all this is only 5%.

Chainflow will be voting yes to support the increase in the number of validators in the active set

is it to 180 from 175 or to 200 from 175 after all?

At the moment I am writing it, the last active validator (175th place) has 113,288 ATOMs staked, while 180th (the latest to join active set if this passes) has 51,781 ATOMs. So this should drastically reduce the active set threshold (it will surely be increased later over time as more validators will try to join).

The proposal itself and its title/description has the active set of 180 validator, so increasing it by 5 spots. There was a typo I overlooked when updating the proposal text in the “Governance votes”, where it says 200 where it should have said 180.

As mentioned above Citizen Cosmos will vote YES. BTW, the essence of the prop looks a bit meh. I tried to explain what i mean here - imo its about building a fairer approach to decentralizing stake.

no. too soon. replicated security needs some stability. if i were mad, i would say proposer is irresponsible.

Informal systems will be voting no. I think the set should eventually be increased to allow for more validator participation but do not believe this is the appropriate time. Replicated security is new and we should be focusing on ensuring smooth operations as more networks look to use ICS. New validators joining the set should be able to earn enough revenue to run a quality, secure validator, while still supporting ICS chains.

And I can only slow clap for your governance participation. this prop has been here for 8 months and you are participating now, with your decision. Calling Prosper mad. Wow.

Appreciate the stance, but I believe the arguments in favor are strong too.

New validators joining the set should be able to earn enough revenue to run a quality, secure validator, while still supporting ICS chains.

I can assure you that existing validators from 170 and minus in the rank, are working in loss and some are in big losses. And those validators try very very hard to maintain standards, often higher than those that earn. Its not about that for a lot of us

Adding to this: there should be a compromise between having a stable active set and allowing new validators to join. As of now, the set is quite stable, but it’s quite impossible to get into the active set unless you have millions of tokens staked. So now it’s difficult to get into the active set even if you contribute a lot (two examples: myself, an ICF delegation recipient, and this delegation is not enough now to get into the active set; and Interbloc, guys who are doing really cool things but their efforts weren’t considered worthy enough to get themselves into the active set, but who could’ve joined if the barrier was lower). As for myself, I consider the expansion for 25 more spots an overkill, and this might be indeed unsafe, but not expanding it greatly limits the validators who want to contribute and be a part of the active set. Just today we had another validator joining the active set and kicking out the last one, and now it costs around 4K ATOMs more to get active than it was before, and it’ll continue to be that way if there’s no expansion. Therefore it seems to be that 5 spots expansion sounds like a nice compromise between having it safe and accessible for…

Excerpt (1192 of 1312 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Adding to this. Not 170 down, 120 and down

The proposal that should be prioritized is that the Commission will be set at a minimum of 5% to ensure that each node has enough funds to operate.

Currently Commission is a free market, but there is no node operating cost protection mechanism at all.

I agree, do we know any specific reason why was the last attempt to make 5% failed?

@jacobgadikian can you help, me understand that?

What do you mean when you say:

there is no node operating cost protection mechanism at all.

Seems that the operators are just that. In fact that is their direct task. They are that mechanism. Its a free market, it regulates itself, and it works superbly imo.

Can you please give a little more context on this?

I’m not sure what you mean here

If I remember correctly there was an attempt via gov to set minimum commission to 5%. Why did it fail? And do you support that if someone tries that again?

Okay, so the proposal has passed, thanks to all participating!

Just a few notes on what I think we need to consider later:

• we (as a community) should analyse how the active set would behave with this expansion
• it might be a nice idea to bootstrap a discussion about the further increase of the active set in a month or two (I do not think it’s reasonable to discuss it further earlier as we won’t have the overview on the active set changes and the desire of the new validators to join)
• as @catdotfish correctly pointed out on Discord validators channel, the change from expanding the active set by 5 spots instead of 25, as discussed in the first place, was done in a bit of a rush, and we should consider spending more time discussing it and getting more feedback from the validators.

Feel free to share your thoughts on the future of the active set here and whether you agree or disagree with my points.

Cheers!

Some analytics from now, to compare it with what will happen in the future:

1. this proposal caused the barrier for the active set to fall from 118,647 ATOMs to 70,566 ATOMs:
   
   

   image1036×742 66.8 KB
2. if someone would want to proceed with increasing the active set by 5 more slots and it’ll pass, the barrier would drop to around 21,971 ATOMs
   
   

   image21034×544 48 KB

Let’s see how this would change in the next few months.

My personal opinion is that it’s way too early for another expansion right now, but that will probably change in the future.

freak12techno:

Let’s see how this would change in the next few months.

My personal opinion is that it’s way too early for another expansion right now, but that will probably change in the future.

Another thing to bear in mind & I would strongly encourage, is that validators at the bottom of the validator set are operationally well prepared, onboarded on to Discord and have a connection with the stewarding team so that security fixes and emergency updates can be co-ordinated better.

We should clarify that the stewarding team is informal systems.

Also I agree that it is very good practice for validators to be connected with the stewarding team.

I definitely agree about the discord although maybe I don’t because I think it’s really important that the hub remains completely permissionless, validation should be open to anybody with 1uatom.

So if we can just encourage that behavior, as opposed to requiring it, I think that’s probably the best approach.

My review for what I’ve been thinking. about this team proposals voting on here Chain is to Choose the price up to 200. or 180 later And let’s see how it’s gonna work… May be can Still going to change later or Not.