[PROPOSAL][DRAFT] (Delaying until 1/2023 after implementation of ICS) Increase the Cosmos Hub Active Validator Set to 200 Validators (from 175)

Summary Cosmos Hub is, as its name implies, the “hub” of the IBC community. Since its creation, the IBC has grown tremendously. Numerous proposals have been created to determine the direction the Hub will evolve as the growing IBC evolves. These proposals and the impassioned discussions surrounding them have highlighted the critical importance of the community governance system. A significant portion of the votes cast come from the validators. At the time of this proposal, there are 488 total Cosmos Hub validators – 175 in the active set and 313 inactive validators who do not have enough delegated Atom tokens to take part in the active set. Typically, validators that are not part of the active set are less active in community governance. Increasing the number of validators in the active set would create additional opportunities for individuals and organizations to support the network as active validators, increase the options available to investors choosing to support the network by staking their Atom tokens, and increase participation in community governance, among other benefits. At the time of this proposal, a minimum of 68,253 Atom (currently valued at 671,063 USD –…

Excerpt (1197 of 5471 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I do not see any valid arguments that would make increasing the amount of validators a good idea/solution to current governance/centralization ‘issues’. Decentralization : Will not improve by adding extra validators. People will keep delegating to top X validators because they do not fully understand how delagation works/implies. Either you add validators at the bottom of the list or not, they will never even see them. My thought on this would be to add an extra tax/fee for delegators of top X validators to force people into understand first then acting for better decentralization until X% of total delagation is reached on that top X validators set. Security : Tho adding more validators would mean more variety of infra, in reality most of validators are using the same cloud technologies. There only is a limited amount of possibilities for validators to make things runnable long term (cost). I do not see how 25 extra validators on the bottom of the list would bring any more variety while competing to stay in the active set, they’d already be fighting to stay active, perhaps investing more on delegated tokens than bringing new costy infra. Additional Options for Delegators :…

Excerpt (1199 of 2067 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I completely agree with you, moreover it would have been wise, in proposal 88, to adjust the tax from 2% to 10% according to the number of atoms at the delegator, in order to discourage the of atoms in the validators who have the most atoms, in favor of a deposit in the smallest validator, which would therefore have a better return…
Perhaps a proposal to that effect should be considered.

The way I see it, if anybody - anybody at all - delegates to their buddy in the 176th spot once he becomes active, or really likes the philosophy of validator #174 but is unwilling to delegate that far down the list for fear that validator ends up out of the active set and the delegator is stuck until he can redelegate again - any little bit helps. I’m not in love with the idea of taxing or penalizing people, investors or top of the list validators, or trying to restrict people’s options. If somebody really likes the #1 validator and that’s their top choice to delegate, and the #1 validator does a really good job as a validator, we don’t want to punish that. Admittedly, security issues are minor. The odds of a catastrophic event knocking out a lot of validators are pretty small. But if there’s a natural disaster, war, government actions, or big technical failure, having even more data centers spread around the world can’t hurt. I’ve noticed in the crypto world that perceptions about money are all over the place. There are countries where you can live on 10 USD per day and parts of the world where a month’s rent in a tiny apartment is 5000 USD. There are crypto investors who…

Excerpt (1198 of 1944 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

If a delegator really wants to delegate to a top-of-the-list validator – they’re a big fan of that validator’s validation history and performance, voting record, presence in the community, etc. – we don’t want to penalize that delegator for picking their preferred validator. And if that validator is a really good validator and a really good presence in the community who has attracted a lot of delegates, we don’t want to punish that. We want good validators.

I see a move like this more as an indirect way to get there by expanding the options available. Letting newer validators compete, make their case, build, be a social presence, be active in the community – without having to ask delegators to forego their staking benefits by delegating to an inactive validator, or requiring every new validator to have 700,000 USD worth of Atom to become active in order to attract delegates.

• About the tax, it definitely is another topic (out of context there). Validators are getting slashed/jailed for bad job, I do not see why delegators could not bear some responsibilities for the chain healthiness. It definitely it just the grand schema of things but the way I see it it would not need to be permanent and could be gradually adjusted, let’s say a target of 55% out of the actual 57.07% for the top 20. Tax runs for the delegators of top 20 validators until the target is reached. That tax could go to the community pool or help low ranked validator to offer extra incentive (temporally) until they get out of the ‘danger zone’. It would act as a safety net, helping those validators building without worrying to much about getting those rewards cut (being inactive) and projects stopped. • About security, I don’t see any valid arguments. No individual (perhaps masses/whales), can choose who’s gonna part of those extra 25 in fact nobody can pick what there infra is gonna be/if they have their own datacenter/where are they gonna be located. • I definitely agree with you about perception of money. I totally acknowledge that there is a barrier higher for some lower for…

Excerpt (1198 of 2732 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

That is a very good idea. It would feed the community pool and promote decentralisation at the same time.

Not that it will not be a magic pill, since a lot of people just stake their funds only to return a year later or so to see how it went.

To add to this discussion; any expansion of validator set does not contribute to decentralisation of voting power. Fun thing is that we have had this discussion on Osmosiszone as well ( Commonwealth ) where it already became clear that the decentralisation trump card simply does not fly. Read more about the analysis here: twitter.com Emperor Osmo🧪 @Flowslikeosmo A common theme on @osmosiszone commonwealth related to Centralization of the chain is to increase the validator set. Below are key events/proposals which had an impact and/or were expected to have a meaningful towards decentralized voting power. 👇 👇👇 https://t.co/Fk0DwBMVku 1:59 AM - 21 Jul 2022 16 7 The only upside of adding validator spots is that more people have the chance to validate, but they will compete with the already long tail of validators struggling to run at break-even. So the net result is that you will have more validators struggling to survive. And choosing to run on crappy hardware to save costs. So if you want to expand the set, it has to be combined with another initiative to disincentivize staking at the top and…

Excerpt (1193 of 1315 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

so what could we put in place to try to best distribute the atoms among the validators?
Because sincerely, apart from a financial reward, to encourage them to go stake with smaller validators, I see no solutions…

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 to be present, let the community know who they are, what they stand for, what they’re working on, and maybe interest at least a small number of delegates – and here’s the important part – without having to ask delegates to redelegate to an inactive validator and miss out on their staking benefits (potentially indefinitely if the validator never makes it into the active set). Under the status quo, there is practically zero chance that any validator other than a person or group with pre-existing wealth would ever attract 700,000 USD worth of Atom from the multiple thousands of delegates that would likely require, who are all willing to forego their staking benefits. I don’t think a good…

Excerpt (1199 of 1424 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

And that is where we disagree in the end. You see, the current centralization of VP on chains, but also between chains is a serious threat for the survival rate for the ecosystem on the long run. We already see political votes everywhere, where people with a team delegate on chain X vote differently on chain Y if it involves a bit of risk for chain X… Decentralisation should be at the very core of every step we take; and expanding the validator set under the pretense of decentralisation is just a false narrative (sorry to put it that blunt). Analysis has shown that it only adds to the competition in the tail and puts more validators at a loss running their service. At this rate adding new validators is more a risk to the security of the chain than adding any value. And if we are not willing to take other steps, then we can also leave these expansions behind us. All the arguments are time and time again that we are not willing to “hurt” the top ranked validators at this point, but in the end this is contra-productive. Having a better decentralised ecosystem is worth more in the long run than the “punishment” large validators might experience. So we have to start looking beyond…

Excerpt (1198 of 1433 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

There are a couple points that are totally missing. • Why do delegators choose top validators ? – Cause they are on the top of the list displayed on the interface – Cause delegators are getting staking rewards for 2 reasons: 1. Securing the chain (sure!) 2. Because they are taking a RISK Being a validator, your cost aren’t exponential, in fact the more delegated the more you scale. A top validator is a validator that has enough means to tackle down the most possible issues. If you only are farming as delegator, you definitely want to minimise your risk thus delegating to top validators. Adding more validators won’t change that paradigm. • Where are metrics in your proposal? Did you do your homeworks? If we allow the 200th validators the ‘barrier’ would be down to 1,666 $ATOM which is exceptionally low to run a proper infra and have some people dedicated to maintenance/problem solving. • Why adding 25 validators ? This one is for you to answer. Is it because we historically worked that way and took for granted the number? Can you justify that number? Can you tell me which impact it will have on the blocktime? Why should we not go back on track with…

Excerpt (1196 of 1798 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

It’s worth noting that the current amount of Atom delegated to validators #176-200 (or any other validators up to #488 ) aren’t good metrics to rely on, because those are inactive numbers. Atom holders typically do not delegate to inactive validators because they forego staking rewards to do so. Any validator has the potential to draw a significant number of delegates, depending on their activity in the community, if they can do it without having to ask enough delegates to reach 700,000 USD worth of Atom (likely thousands of people) to delegate to an inactive validator and give up their staking benefits. Atom has a theoretical maximum of 300 validators before the network begins becoming noticeably slower. (I’m a little concerned that Tendermint has a 300 validator limit – 10 years from now if/when Atom is a significant and enormous player in the cryptocurrency world, a mere 300 entities controlling the chain is tiny and makes it look like Cosmos isn’t scaleable.) Honestly, I think, given the size of the chain, the activity of the community, the relative market cap of Atom compared to every other IBC coin, and the fact that there are 488 total validators would probably…

Excerpt (1192 of 1423 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

ephemeral_25:

• Why do delegators choose top validators ?
  – Cause they are on the top of the list displayed on the interface
  – Cause delegators are getting staking rewards for 2 reasons: 1. Securing the chain (sure!) 2. Because they are taking a RISK

Being a validator, your cost aren’t exponential, in fact the more delegated the more you scale.
A top validator is a validator that has enough means to tackle down the most possible issues.

If you only are farming as delegator, you definitely want to minimise your risk thus delegating to top validators.

Adding more validators won’t change that paradigm.

Can you also share your thoughts on this one @Tritador? Because it seems you are evading this point imo… especially relevant for me to have your view on this because we have had the exact same discussion on Osmosis Commonwealth when expanding from 135 to 150 validators. And over there it did not do anything towards decentralisation… so why make the same mistake over and over again believing this time will be different?

Also on Akash there was a similar discussion and similar results.

There was a proposal to increase the validator set size from 85 to 100 raised about a year ago.

Since then, the 15 validators that have entered the set hold 1.34% of total voting power.

@Tritador, I agree that decentralization of the network should be very high priority. But, there are higher leverage ways to work toward this goal than increasing the size of the validator set.

Adding onto this point: with ICS coming up, validators will need a lot of educational and operational support. Adding 25 additional validators to the Hub has a definitively higher cost (supporting them) than it does return (no significant improvement in network decentralization).

Increasing the size of the active set is not a fix, just a baby step. I’m comfortable leaving complex plans regarding education, taxes, and incentives to the experts. If 25 new validators are added, this will not cause a significant number of delegates to the top 7 to rush to redelegate to bottom-of-the-list validators. If 25 new validators are added, this will most likely not cause a significant number of new Atom entering the ecosystem to delegate to those bottom-of-the-list validators. Some, but not a huge number (though any amount helps at least a little bit). Where increasing the active set has a chance to shine is new validators who are serious about the task and work hard in the ecosystem. For example, if you are validator #176 , you’re serious about validation, you’re building in the ecosystem, you even have a community who follows what you’re working on, and you have real potential to get your name out there – you might actually end up with, let’s say 50,000 delegated Atom if you get promoted into the active set by expansion and work hard at it. That doesn’t fix everything, but that’s 50,000 Atom not delegated to the #1 validator on the list. Every bit helps. (And…

Excerpt (1199 of 2236 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

That is a different reasons for expansion than decentralisation.

Time has shown that the 50k ATOM you are talking about is in general not coming from the top ranked validators… but from the tail of validators already. So in terms of decentralisation it does not add any value to expand.

If you want more validators to take part in the validating business of the Hub in general, then we have a different discussion. There I am more keen on following your line of reasoning… but please keep the text for decentralisation out of the proposals, since it hurts more than it does good in the discussions around that specific subject.

Tritador

1m

I appreciate the feedback. I assumed some amount of the Atom that ends up delegated to a new validator would come from the top of the list, just because statistically that’s where a lot of Atom is. But maybe that’s not the case and the top of the list is mostly stake-and-forget Atom that never moves.

I’ll make some edits to soften the decentralization language and make some adds bring out the other advantages once the workday permits.

Yeah, I really hoped in the past that an expansion would work that way… but it sadly doesn’t…

I think your statement “stake-and-forget Atom” is true. People delegating in the top are often also not people very much engaged, but rather wanting to stake their coins safely and return after a loooooooooong time seeing rewards on their coins. Active people are more keen to redelegate, because they understand the value of decentralisation.
But that is also why some sort of bonus for delegating to lower ranked validators is needed. Because APR chasers will then take a bit more risk with a slightly higher APR >> and we will get more decentralisation of VP.

Thanks again for all of your feedback. I made some edits to focus more heavily on some of the other advantages of expanding the active set, softened the parts about decentralization, and tweaked some things per other comments in this thread.

Did you already do this in the original post? (not sure if I should see “edited” marked somewhere)

Yes. The edit status is rather subtly displayed with the number next to the pencil icon at the very top of the post.

But the text of the post has been reworked from the original version. The thrust is mostly the same, but the order things appear and which things are emphasized is different.

In principle I am in favour of increasing the validator set incrementally over time as this proposal is suggesting. However, I think as @ala.tusz.am said we should keep ICS in mind and the additional overhead that will come with it:

ala.tusz.am:

Adding onto this point: with ICS coming up, validators will need a lot of educational and operational support. Adding 25 additional validators to the Hub has a definitively higher cost (supporting them) than it does return (no significant improvement in network decentralization).

Personally, I would prefer to wait until ICS is live and we have some consumer chains up and running before expanding the validator set.

I share this sentiment, I’m concerned for how increasing the validators set with ICS approaching could impact the performance and coordination of validators for ICS.

Considering how the upcoming upgrade is important for the Cosmos Hub future, I would prefer avoid any extra risk and wait to increase the validators set after Interchain Security is successfully implemented along with the first Consumer Chains onboarded.

For most upgrades, validators typically just use Cosmovisor, the upgrade happens at the appropriate time, and the chain goes back to making blocks. Is there something abnormal about the ICS upgrade that’s going to make it more difficult or require something extra on the validators’ ends?

Yes, ICS is not a common upgrade, because it will require that validator will run at least 1 node for each consumer chain, so this will expand the costs for validators. And in the first phase of Interchain Security will be very important to make the whole system sustainable.

Adding more validators right now, also add the risks of having no profitable validators.

More importantly once a consumer chain is onboarded, in order to successfully run a Consumer Chains it requires at least 67% of validators to run that Consumer chain. So adding more validators it will imply more risks to not reach that necessary %.

The first phase of ICS will require a lot of coordination, efforts and additional operations costs from validators. This is why I think it would be better to consider to expand the validators set once an optimal coordination is reached with the current set.

A couple good points. I think the community needs to aim their comments at Keplr and Cosmostation. Those wallets present validators to delegators based on total stake, which only further centralizes the network.

We run nodes for both ATOM and MATIC. The wallets needs to act more like the Polygon wallet, which puts the smallest validators at the top of the list and has a banner that asks delegators to please support the network by staking with smaller validators. The Polygon dashboard also has filters where users can see validators based on total stake, performance, commission and random. Here’s a link for your reference: https://staking.polygon.technology/

We wouldn’t be against adding more active validators, but it is important to consider that hardware requirements are going way up in January with the introduction of consumer chains. We are barely profitable at spot #119 currently and our costs are about to rise, so how will validator #190 stay in business? Something to consider.

Is the date for the ICS upgrade firm? I ask mostly because if it’s a month away, there’s no reason new validators wouldn’t be up to speed by then.

If they’re not, it sounds like the worst case scenario would be if none of the new bottom 25 validators are set up to run a specific consumer chain, it would fall on the rest of the validators to do so. I can’t imagine the huge majority of the front page of the active validators wouldn’t – isn’t ICS supposed to generate revenue for the validator and its delegators?

Yes, the roadmap is the following:

December 2022

• Signaling proposal on Cosmos Hub

January 2023

• Final deployment of interchain security on the Cosmos Hub

• Onboarding of consumer chains (Neutron, and others)

Current validators just ended the game of Chains Testnet that is preparing validators to run ICS Consumer Chains: Interchain Security by Informal Systems

So considering all the preparation done with the current set, I think the most likely scenario will be to go through the initial phase of ICS with the current validators set, unfortunately adding more validators right now brings more risks than benefits.

This is good information. What are the consequences if a bottom-of-the-list validator is woefully unprepared for ICS?

Does that just mean the validator isn’t running a node for a consumer chain and it will fall to the other validators to make sure 67% of them are doing so? (And consequently, that validator wouldn’t generate revenue from the consumer chain?)

Or is there a potential for damage to the actual Hub and not just the unprepared validator?

Going forward, there’s (hopefully) always going to be the next chain requiring coordination between validators, and the next upgrade. In an ideal world, there would never be a perfect place where everything is calm and new validators can just jump in seamlessly.

A note of clarification - ICS isn’t opt-in. If a consumer chain is approved to lease the Hub’s security, all validators must participate in securing the consumer chain.

Totally agree with you. The timing for adding validators is not now.