Clarifying Requirements for Validators --- ATOM is the only acceptable form of payment for transaction fees on the CosmosHub Chain
Maybe this will not need a proposal formally presented through governance. Can a active validator and an active developer or someone from the Interchain Foundation please list the requirements of a transaction for a validator to approve it.
What are the detailed required specifics. I think I found a pretty major issue but maybe I don’t know the rules as well as you all do. To me what I’m looking at is common sense not a transaction that should get approved but multiple validators are doing the same thing. So I have come to learn not to argue or create controversy.
To create clarity as liquid staking is introduced broadly to the ecosystem.
What do you mean by ‘requirements’? Are you thinking ‘rules’ as in the technical requirements or the social norms? I’m not sure if this is a proposal (as in - something to go on chain through governance) or a request for clarification.
Technically speaking, ATOM is the only allowable fee token on the Hub right now. But I don’t think there’s any mandate or norm to keep it like that.
stAtom is being accepted by validators currently. please unspam my post that was flagged which has all the details links and a proposal to stop this or officially modify it.
It is dangerous what’s going on right now if the validators are approving transactions not paid in liquid ATOM unchecked. There is a long rant and citations about why this is bad and could threaten the idea of upcoming interchain sercurity implementation. stATOM is not ATOM, they cannot use a token that represents a staked delegated token as if it were liquid representation without converting back to ATOM. I have posted links to transactions and to payouts ive received from this practice. My proposal is one warning and clarification the slashing and jailing.
It’s too important the 4 billion dollar atom MC is not compromised using a 3 million dollar cap liquid staking protocol issued token in it’s place.
The two I have direct evidence on chain of are Binance and SG-1. again in the post that the bot flagged for spam.
Maybe good to raise this issue on technical support on the Cosmos SDK, Cosmos Community Discord or Github SDK Discussion Board. I think you will receive quicker and more direct feedback/discussion on this topic there.
They seem to think this is no issue at all and advised i go through governance if I thought their practices were not ethical or valid approvals.
Guys I watched and screamed and yelled all through LUNA getting destroyed for profits. ATOM has to be held to the highest and most exacting standards. It’s soon to be the glue for all IBC chains that opt into interchain security. LUNA was it’s own sovereign problem. ATOM can take down an entire ecosystem if we attach other chains security directly to it
IT’s flagged as spam under conversations and security tabs,
I think your initial post was flagged because the first times you post after signing up you dont have "link"right yet. those come with lvl ing up by contributing first. see “basic badge”.
I have now. but this was an emergency. This is easy to fix now, not if this is standard practice and the bull hits next week finally. i dont think anyone is nefarious here. just not thinking this through to its conclusion.
Ah, i see. yes, now you can post links.
Interchain Explorer by Cosmostation
Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks.
/its causing wallets and balances to read wrong because not ATOM shouldnt be a reward claimed
Being paid in stATOM as a striaght delegator of ATOM in dust. Trace this cause down and it is validators accepting stATOM for fees.
Have you seen this : from exodus wallet on reddit, fix for extreem amounts of ATOM in wallet ?
seems to have been bug in exodus wallet and the fix is in the reddit post 
i was wondering why
yes but the root cause is stATOM being distributed as rewards to delegators. The system has adjusted but that’s what cause the initial misunderstanding of reward value and amount.
ah, ok. for the technical side, I have no idea.
stATom is not ATOM. I just want us all to agree to this. It allows for use as a staked token which is backed by a delegated atom. it cannot function as a liquid undelegated token as well.
For what it is worth, I agree. staked ATOM can not be used in a transaction or as fee for transactions.
I realize slashing and jailing binance is no small ask here. But it is not okay. Millions of ATOM are going to be effected. but the message it sends is clear. no one is above the rules as a validator. SG-1 is top 5 also… also stride only delegated to top 10 validators on each change. This is another reason this problem can be worse. Take the stAToM as fee and keep the actual ATOM too. it’s giving nothing essentially and keeping an ATOM. I wonder if this has something to do with the large gap starting to grow between stTOKEN and TOKEN value on Osmosis for Stride back liquid staked asset tokens.
I think you have made your point clear here in this forum and also on the discord. Whether it is picked up or not, this is too be seen. That is not in our hands.
They have my entire proposal for a hub proposal and discussion flagged by a bot as SPAM. Someone from community just needs to look and unflag it. Then I will submit through governance. @lexa
tag moderator @lexa , Maybe she can/will/will not look into it and can/ can not unspam the original message. Dont know how that works tbh.
The original just took 4 hours to write and 20 hours of research. I’d rather not re-write it from scratch.
hahaha, I can imagine 
@lexa would appreciate it.
btw, how you know stATOM is used for the transaction as fee? when you claim reward as I see in the link/tx you provided the fee is for as far as I can see deducted from the ATOM in your account which is not staked ATOM. It doesnt show up seperate in the transaction history but is settled in the overall transaction/payout to your account.
(https://forum.cosmos.network/t/akismet-has-temporarily-hidden-your-post/9917):
Many delegators/Validators were joking and laughing about this in cosmos developers discord and just blowing it off and actively paying their fees with stATOM just to do it.
They have 1.8 million ATOM in their control. They do not think someone or any of us with 280 ATOM can do anything about it. That’s what happened to LUNA I pulled out at $12 in February 2021
They think it’s no big deal and everyone will just get a little dust from it as reward
And in all fairness to the spam bot, it did request millions of delegated ATOMs to be slashed lol so I mean it’s understandable
Best part on blockchain is anyone can verify what im stating and everyone can see what’s happened
Hahaha, yes, that would make a bot pay attention
Thx for clarifying. What I see is that the fee for the transaction was payed by the ATOM in your account. The IBC dust was added/extra reward that came with the claimed reward. stATOM is liquid staked on STRD. STRD gets 10% of the ATOM staking rewards of the underlying staked ATOM in unstaked ATOM.
Well, my knowledge is very limmited. I hope you get some more answers and if possible unspamming of your orriginal message. good luck
@lexa My technical proposal is blocked by a spam bot if you’d be so kind as to review and override it
So ridiculous we let an AI spam bot stop anyone from reading actual crucial information. Guys I know that spamming is an issue but you can’t just take 12 day breaks between checking if the bot is correct
What makes the Cosmos Hub's ATOM valuable? - Figment
The main drivers of the ATOM's value could be more than transaction fees. ATOM-holders should be able to extract value in different ways.
docs.cosmos.networkGas and Fees | Cosmos SDK
This document describes the default strategies to handle gas and fees within a Cosmos SDK application.
docs.cosmos.networkTransaction Lifecycle | Cosmos SDK
This document describes the lifecycle of a transaction from creation to committed state changes. Transaction definition is described in a different doc. The transaction is referred to as Tx.