Let’s make it so that validators do not represent their delegators.
Yes
No
Abstain
Veto
As part of an overall governator structure then maybe… just stripping delegation of voting power seems very odd.
- We’d never get 66% Expedited participation from individual voters alone for emergencies
- There are likely active wallets that don’t vote and would need either a governator system or ease of access to Authz setting up.
I agree here.
In the current format it would be terrible to remove the VP from validators in governance.
However, there have been talks in the past to get to the point where you have validators for the technical part and governators (or any other fitting name) who take care of the governance part.
And then I would like to see real work on the governance part, not just solely voting what we see happening on other places where the work has been split. We should demand participation in conversations around governance and more, not just some empty voting which can be rigged on chain.
My idea is fairly simple, as is the mechanism. It should be fairly non-disruptive, and scales in effectiveness in a kind of novel way.
For every validator, when the voting period is over there should be an account of what percentage of their delegated voting power was used.
The percentage of it that was used by the delegators themselves should be the amount that validators remaining delegated voting power is reduced by.
For example, if they have 100 total voting power and 50 of it is used by the delegators, the remaining 50 is slashed by 50%, and they now have 25 to vote with.
You could go even further and give that “missing” voting power to the delegators, or make it a lot simpler by just giving a significant percentage of those delegators who do not vote to the ones who do.
My reasoning for this is that:
a) you don’t break governance if/when the community is disengaged or just not voting for some reason
b) the more of the delegated voting power that is actually used by the delegators, the less the validator vote is needed and in some cases wanted at all
3 Likes
The interesting part here is that it is tricky because it creates a perverse trend.
Some validators have been pushing their delegators to vote themselves; in those cases the validator voting power is “punished” for their efforts.
On the other hand you might have validators who are awefully silent on the governance field and their voting power will be untouched.
It might have the effect that the voting power of the latter is relatively more prominent in the voting, which might actually influence the outcomes of the proposal as well.
I would be more interesting in how the model on Stride now works; where validating and governance are separated.
I did intend the proposal to be a bit extreme.
I didn’t mean it as part of a governator scheme.
I have been doing this for some time, and I think that governance decisions and results would be different if we eliminated validator representation of delegators.
Also, I need to amend the title of this prop.
Are you descirbing a data gathering initiative?
If you would like to launch one, I know some people who likely have the skills and maybe even half of the tooling available, but I can’t finance any actual research effort, so the time it could take is unknown. Maybe if they will accept an IOU for nomics.
If there is serious interest I will persue this. Most of the real work there is well above me, but I know some folk…
1 Like
Yeah, the ugly part is in the amount of data required to be able to do the analysis and simulation properly.
You would need the voting power of the validator at the time of the proposal, the delegators of that validator at that time AND a marker telling if and how a specific delegator has voted.
With those 3 variables in place it is “simple” to create the scenario. The most difficult part is in the amount of data to be processed 
I actually know 2 people who created tooling specifically do to these things lol.
2 Likes
Yes, I have very serious interest in this.
I am specifically worried about:
- Claims of validator gatekeeping being true
- Validator control replacing stakeholder control
I used to think that it was enough for stakeholders to be able to override their validators but I no longer hold that pov.
I think that the only votes that matter are those that are actually cast, and that validators should vote only with their own stake.
This pov was a long time coming, and initially when exposed to this idea I was strongly opposed.
1 Like
What do you mean with this one?
Probably making governance extremely expensive to particiapte in (creation of proposals) and then no validator or anyone else being willing to help with any reasonable request by community members who want to submit a proposal.
I don’t think that is the case here, but it certainly happens.
1 Like
this might fix the problem right now community doesnt matter stride decides!
1 Like
Yes. I’m glad you understood my intention here.