note
After further study, this governance proposal proved to be unworkable. It would only further reinforce a tendency of delegators to delegate at the top of the validator set.
In addition to that, ideas for reallocating steak in a set reduction all look quite bad in hindsight.
Thank you for your participation in this proposal, it was not a good proposal.
Note: this is a draft and I am aware of validators who provide outsized value in governance who are ranked below 69 and this proposal should not be enacted until osmosis has established a system of governators.
2nd note: If we ever did this, it’s likely that the steak should be automatically redelegated over the entire validators set equally, I never really considered the full implications of a validators set reduction until I saw a recent tweet from a validator colleague.
When we reduce the validator set, we will also cause a number of long-term stakers to lose their expexted rewards.
Vote options
Vote yes to reduce the validator set to 69
Vote no to take no action
Vote abstain to express no opinion on this matter
Vote nowithveto to vote no and contribute to a veto tally. If if the veto tally reaches one third of the total votes as judged by governance vote power, this proposal automatically fails and the deposit is burned.
The benefits must outweight the downsides
What do we really get vs what dose this cost
There is dev work and risk involved to avoid delegators losing out, and if are automatically restaked to another validator they end up with a validator they did not choose
Not to mention all the validator businesses harmed(including ours) despite being an IBC relayer since inception with little reward
5 Likes
Actually you might have just killed this idea I don’t know it looked nice in theory but it would be a lot of work and certainly nobody’s being harmed by having a larger valset (not precisely anyway)
PS: I appreciate a good killing of ideas, and I thank you for it, because that means that the work doesn’t need to be done anymore.
4 Likes
The increase from 135 to 150 never made sense to me as when looking at those validators that weren’t in the active set and the amount of OSMO delegated to them, a natural cutoff/break seemed to justify an expansion of to 140 or 145.
A reduction to 69 also makes no sense. It is a weird number, and the cutoff would be having more than 933,193 OSMO to be in the active set. A more natural break and obvious break would be to set it at 70 validators which at the moment would require more than 900K OSMO to be in the active set as the 70th validator has 912,474 OSMO staked to it and the 71st validator has 898,191. That still runs into the problem mentioned by AutoStake though. However, currently only 32,420 OSMO is needed to get into the active set, which is a rather strong indicator to me that 150 validators is too many.
140 or 145 validators still seems like the appropriate number to me as the cutoff would bring a validator needing just under 250K OSMO or more than 225K to get into the active set.
I would support a reduction to 140 or 145. However, I also believe that if this is done, it should be accompanied by some sort of program that keep those that have been cut in the community some how, such a small grant that would encourage current small validators to partner with those that have been cut to operate a single validator.
