### Author:  [@faddat](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/faddat)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2024, 7:34am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/1 "2024-05-16T07:34:10Z")
Let’s make it so that validators do not represent their delegators.
>
>
> \# Description
>
> Closes: #XXXX
>
> DRAFT! Need to create an issue to match this.
> …
>
> This PR eliminates the validators representative role in governance. Tests still need to be reworked, and this code needs to be checked much more thoroughly.
>
> I think that the best way to implement this is likely to have two tally systems:
>
> tally\_sentorial.go \<- current functionality
> tally\_agora.go \<- new functionality where validators do not represent validators
>
> Probably additional changes need to be made, and tests need to be updated in both cases.
>
> Thought should be given as to how to bring this to production safely, and chains adopting it should probably reduce quorum dramatically.
>
> It seems that all tests outside of x/gov pass.
>
>
>
> \### Question(s) for maintainers
>
> What path would you like to see for maintaining this? This has been a super common request throughout my involvement in cosmos, and I opposed it for a long time. After a long time, it began to make a lot of sense. I think that it might be possible to let chain authors mix and match though, so that in certain conditions, validators still vote on behalf of delegators.
>
> In my opinion, it may make sense to keep validator representation for situations like chain upgrades.
>
> Please note that I fully understand that this could need major reworking, and am happy to do it.
>
>
>
> \---
>
> \## Author Checklist
>
> \*All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
> please add links to any relevant follow up issues.\*
>
> I have...
>
> \* \[\] included the correct \[type prefix\](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title
> \* \[\] confirmed \`!\` in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
> \* \[\] targeted the correct branch (see \[PR Targeting\](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#pr-targeting))
> \* \[\] provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
> \* \[\] reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
> \* \[\] included the necessary unit and integration \[tests\](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#testing)
> \* \[\] added a changelog entry to \`CHANGELOG.md\`
> \* \[\] updated the relevant documentation or specification, including comments for \[documenting Go code\](https://blog.golang.org/godoc)
> \* \[\] confirmed all CI checks have passed
>
> \## Reviewers Checklist
>
> \*All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
> your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.\*
>
> I have...
>
> \* \[\] confirmed the correct \[type prefix\](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title
> \* \[\] confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
> \* \[\] reviewed state machine logic, API design and naming, documentation is accurate, tests and test coverage
Yes
No
Abstain
Veto
---
### Author:  [@JohnnyWyles](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/JohnnyWyles)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2024, 10:44am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/2 "2024-05-16T10:44:06Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2024, 6:36pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/3 "2024-05-16T18:36:03Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@maxpower](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/maxpower)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2024, 4:28am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/4 "2024-05-18T04:28:02Z")
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
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2024, 5:35pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/5 "2024-05-20T17:35:06Z")
> [@maxpower](#):
>
> 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
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.
---
### Author:  [@faddat](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/faddat)
#### Post date: [May 28, 2024, 1:20pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/6 "2024-05-28T13:20:11Z")
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.
@maxpower
Are you descirbing a data gathering initiative?
---
### Author:  [@maxpower](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/maxpower)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2024, 3:19am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/7 "2024-06-03T03:19:56Z")
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…
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2024, 5:48am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/8 "2024-06-03T05:48:50Z")
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 🙂
---
### Author:  [@maxpower](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/maxpower)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2024, 7:52pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/9 "2024-06-08T19:52:15Z")
I actually know 2 people who created tooling specifically do to these things lol.
---
### Author:  [@faddat](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/faddat)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2024, 1:36am UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/10 "2024-06-14T01:36:53Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@LeonoorsCryptoman](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/LeonoorsCryptoman)
#### Post date: [June 17, 2024, 6:35pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/11 "2024-06-17T18:35:37Z")
> [@faddat](#):
>
> Claims of validator gatekeeping being true
What do you mean with this one?
---
### Author:  [@maxpower](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/maxpower)
#### Post date: [July 10, 2024, 10:56pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/12 "2024-07-10T22:56:44Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Razzien](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/Razzien)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2024, 10:59pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/13 "2024-08-13T22:59:23Z")
this might fix the problem right now community doesnt matter stride decides!
---
### Author:  [@faddat](https://forum.osmosis.zone/u/faddat)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2024, 10:52pm UTC](https://forum.osmosis.zone/t/eliminate-validator-participation-in-governance/2761/14 "2024-08-19T22:52:50Z")
> [@Razzien](#):
>
> stride decides
Yes. I’m glad you understood my intention here.