The governator manifesto

[faddat]

@RoboMcGobo

I find it extremely difficult to believe that validators would vote for this cut in their own revenues, especially given many of them operate at a loss already. This is effectively what will happen with Stride, but in this case Hub validators have the additional incentive of ATOM emissions and other ICS rewards. An opt-out mechanism may be the answer here, but why would a validator not opt-out in this instance and maintain the status quo (and their rewards)?

One of the key points of this manifesto is that this should never happen under any circumstances. Most validators are underwater already and osmosis should reduce the size of its validator set to 69.

Reduce validator set to 69

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 sho…

@RoboMcGobo

Equally problemmatic. First, this would have the effect of passing the cost of maintenance of governators onto users (via dilution and / or paying 2 commissions).

I had a second realization here, on osmosis, there is a flow of tokens directed toward the team, and I have a feeling that since so many of them want this, that it is very likely that they would accept some dilution to their flow of inflation in order to spawn the governators, meaning that this would not affect the community pool, liquidity rewards, or incentives to delegators.