Implement Copy-Staking for Stride’s Osmosis Delegations

[Cman_Crypto]

@LeonoorsCryptoman

On the other hand we know we have a problem with centralisation of voting power in the ecosystem and the current form of Stride delegations gave a chance of smaller performant validators to stand out. That will disappear in this proposed format. It will be sensitive to airdrop-promising validators (which are excluded in the other format) and other cheap tactics of reaping in delegations. I am aware that any automated format will not be able to tackle this, which is a step back from what we have right now.

I just wanted to add to this, whilst I appreciate that there is a perceived right and wrong in these matters - at the end of the day, Osmo stakers are the ones that decide where their stake goes. To delegate to CEX validators or to contribute towards centralization is their right, despite the perceived wrongness of doing so.

I think it’s summed up well below:

@RoboMcGobo

But at the same time the process is subjective, relies on the 5 council members’ decisions, and puts delegation decisions firmly in Stride’s hands. Non-liquid staking delegators may have a good reason for delegating the way that they do, and arguably LSPs like Stride, pStake, Quicksilver, etc disrupt that existing dynamic.

This proposal questions whether it is Stride’s place to determine what Osmo stakers or the Osmosis chain wants. I think we all agree subjectively that more decentralisation is better, but for me the question is, is this up to Stride to do or should this be handled by other mechanisms.

I know the counter argument is that by liquid staking with Stride, Osmo holders are indicating that they want Stride to do these things, but the current alternative is to either not liquid stake or to liquid stake with a competing provider (and that’s another discussion around LSP support on Osmosis) and so that’s why I think this proposal is important for both Stride and Osmosis.