Carbon Governance Forum
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Tags

    TradeHub Security & Decentralization Improvement Proposal"

    Community Developers
    9
    11
    394
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • M
      menghow last edited by

      I strongly agree, I will vote yes

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • A
        acidbird last edited by

        We are fine with implementing this if the majority agrees.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • K
          kang last edited by

          I agree in princple that the current situation lacks a mechanism to discourage/prevent a validator from growing too big.

          I agree with the proposed approach above as well.

          I would just want to point out that, even if BH reduces to 7.5%, the difference is 9.79% - if you spread it out, it's still <0.5% per validator, which might not save a good budding validator, like S3.

          To achieve the second goal of this proposal, which is to incentivise new validators and help smaller validators, I would suggest for a performance bonus as well. A smaller validator can still earn SWTH if they maintain a good setup (hence good uptime) and vote often. That can be discussed at a later stage.

          C I 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 2
          • C
            Coco87 @kang last edited by

            @kang interesting

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • L
              Luanspena last edited by

              Great for decentralization

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • R
                RSACryptoTrader last edited by

                I think this is a fantastic idea and we should proceed. We cannot risk peoples investments and the security of the chain on a few validators. At the end of the day we most likely want 50 or more validators anyway. It would be a yes vote from my end.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • P
                  PuzlyVoilete last edited by PuzlyVoilete

                  I agree it's a fantasitic Idea... We all aim decentralization, and it's a perfect proposal. And, it's good for new validators who wants to get stakers without intense maketing. We can imagine a "negative commissions" which gonna helps, new validators.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • I
                    intsol last edited by

                    I also agree that the existing commission only mechanism is too blunt an instrument and does not adequately address the inherent conflict between validators maximising their voting power and chain health via a wide vote distribution, ensuring the safety and continuity of operation of the chain.

                    I would additionally propose the following:

                    1. The introduction of the adjusted commission have a moratorium period (of say 30 days), to allow stakers to re-delegate without incurring any reward penalty.
                    2. That the proposal incorporate the option to distribute the adjusted commission pro rata across stakes on < 8% voting power validators. This will make the proposal a redistribution of rewards and eliminate the criticism that it is a further tax.
                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • I
                      intsol @kang last edited by

                      @kang - A kick starter program of some kind for new validators is an interesting idea. Given that stakers (including validators), would be voting to increase the number of validators, it would also be reasonable that they would support them via a stake.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • R
                        ravenxce last edited by ravenxce

                        I like the idea in its essence. Some open questions:

                        1. How does it scale to > 23 validators? (e.g. How does this look like with 100 validators?) Ideally it should work nicely even if max validator num is voted to be larger or smaller by using scaled values, rather than using hard-coded numbers.
                        2. In terms of implementation - what is needed? Has the cosmos-sdk codebase that is relevant to this (see x/distribution module) been looked at? Core devs only has time to do so after Stargate. If we have consensus on the idea, ideally the patch can be funded by SDF too.
                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • First post
                          Last post