This proposal reduces the Osmosis active validator set from 70 to 30.
Motivation
This proposal follows Proposal 976 and Proposal 1017, which reduced the set from 120 to 100 and then to 70.
Osmosis is refocusing on its core product: a secure, specialised venue for cross-chain liquidity. That calls for a validator set sized to the network’s security and reliability needs, with each validator able to operate to a high standard.
Faster coordination. Security incidents and chain upgrades require validators to act quickly. A smaller set means faster responses when something goes wrong, and smoother upgrades when things go right.
Lower overhead. Fewer validators reduce network communication overhead and hardware demands, and speed up block production.
Sustainable operators. Several prominent validators have stopped validating on Osmosis this year, including Cosmostation, Informal Systems, Forbole, Nansen and Sentinel. Sharing protocol revenue between fewer validators keeps running a validator viable on real revenue rather than issuance.
Decentralisation Impact
Smaller sets produce blocks more reliably, at the cost of fewer independent operators. The number of validators needed to halt or control the chain depends on how voting power is distributed, not on the set size, and the tail of the current set holds little of it.
Current set
Proposed set (30)
Validators holding 33.3% of stake
6
5
Validators holding 67% of stake
18
14
Validators below the 67% threshold
50
16
Validators outside the top 30 hold about 22.8 million OSMO, 12.7% of bonded stake. Delegators to these validators stop earning staking rewards when the change executes. They can redelegate to a validator in the active set at any time, with no unbonding period.
Why? when it started the goal was 50 validator, and there was discussion now the state of the affairs is so dire that there is no one left to discuss this, dropping the 40 validator would also mean their staked VP from the retail who had believed on Osmosis and staked for the longer term, what is the solution for that other than if they care they should move? Do you care?
Does osmosis foundation stake have any official/unofficial validation program? What is the criteria to stake with validators?
Please share why the 30 is the ideal solution and why not 4, coordination and speed would be at best ?
Why concentration does not matter for the team?
Looking forward to your response before the prop goes on chain.
Delegators to validators outside the top 30. Nobody loses stake. Delegators can redelegate to any validator in the active set at any time, instantly, with no 14-day unbonding period and no gap in staking rewards. Rewards only stop if they leave their stake with a validator that drops out of the set. Between this forum post and the end of the voting period there are around ten days to move, and we’ll do what we can to make sure affected delegators hear about it. For context, validators shutting down already affect inactive stakers more than this change would: Cosmostation alone still has around 12.25M OSMO delegated despite having stopped validating.
Why 30, and not 50 or 4. We’ve been shrinking the set gradually (120 to 100, then 70), and this is a larger step towards a set sized more appropriately for the network. It could shrink further, but the validators providing real services to the network mostly sit above the 30 line: RPC provision, relaying, testing, rapid upgrading, offchain tooling/dashboard and high uptime. Cutting in steps gives delegations time to move towards those operators, which strengthens the set at each stage. There’s no official delegation program, but the foundation stakes with validators known to provide these services.
Concentration. Decentralisation is what matters, and it’s measured by how many validators it takes to halt or control the chain, not by the size of the set. At 30, it still takes 5 validators to reach a third of the stake (6 today) and 14 to reach two thirds (18 today). Both thresholds stay close to where they are now. A set of 4 would collapse them, which is why we aren’t proposing anything near that.
That’s what i said, everyone knows there are dead retail accounts who will lose on rewards for year before realizing their validator is not active anymore. Validator leaving their self is a different thing then governance making them leave the set.
You didn’t answer my question about the foundation delegation, and what is the criteria. I know a small validators validating/relaying/ providing RPCS snapshots and not getting a single FD. So i deserve to know what is the criteria.
