Proposal: Increase the Active Validator Set to 100
Persistence is gearing up to become the liquid staking hub for the Cosmos ecosystem and beyond. The increasing activity on the chain with launch of pSTAKE-issued stkASSETs on the Persistence Core-1 chain and Cosmwasm-powered applications calls for increasing the number of active validators to 100.
Background:
Persistence Core-1 was launched with an active set of 50 validators and the active set was expanded to 75 validators through an on-chain governance by Cosmostation in September 2021 (Mintscan).
Since then the chain has been stable and incident-free. But since the expansion of the active set the Persistence validator community has grown significantly and now the minimum stake required to be an active validator is very high.
Other Cosmos-based chains, such as Osmosis and Juno, have already raised the cap to 135 validators, proving that this parameter upgrade is feasible.
What do we propose?
This proposal will increase the number of active validators to 100. This will allow the smaller or new validators to contribute to the Persistence Core-1 chain and attract delegation from the community.
As a validator itself, Frens Validator believes that the growth of the validator ecosystem results in more collaboration and network growth.
From the community, we’d love to hear:
Shall we increase the validator set size now? If not, what concerns do you have against it?
Currently the one who would need more than 7k XPRT to be able to get into validator set. If some inactive validators sort their issues and be active again, it will be 20k XPRT will be needed at least. I think it is a high bar and also not good for the networks that aiming decentralization.
Giving new node operator community members the option to be part of validator set would also enable people to delegate them. Also, new validators would be candidates to receive Foundation’s delegation. It would be good for the health of the network and decentralization of staked XPRTs.
Hi @fabian_kl Frens, CryptoCrew are 100% pro increasing the active set to 100 validators. with the average validator quality constantly increasing over various chains increasing the set to 100 will:
invite new high quality validators to join the set to achieve better decentralization
still be small enough (sub 130) to not cause performance issues
Active Nodes agree to extend the set to 100 Validators. This will surely bring to Persistence new talented Validators, increasing the competition and maybe start to absorb voting power from the top 20. It doesn’t help with decentralization, but we don’t see any negative side in this proposal.
Edouard from Stakin.com here. I believe it makes sense to increase the size of the active set, it will further decentralize Persistence, and I expect the protocol to remain stable.
No sense to have 25 more active validators , the entry price is less than 13k $ at the moment.
Regarding the inactive set, upgrading by 5 could be ok, and even I think it’s too early for that.
Thanks @fabian_kl, that’s a great proposal. Increasing a validator set will attract more active developers and users to the ecosystem and will contribute to decentralisation of the network. We will be voting in favor!
100 validators is a good number as it does not degrade from block time or network performance, and allows a decent number of new and smaller validators to come onboard. However, adding 25 validators does not instantly increase decentralization. This should be the first step towards spreading out delegation; with other options to include reducing the > 33% delegation to foundation validator nodes.
We support the proposal as it is a good start to a more decentralized network.
Before deciding, we would like to better understand the rationale for this increase. At current prices, we do not really see the barrier to entry indicated in the main proposal. We understand it is more about strengthening decentralization. If so, we think that the proposal would be better served with more data to back it. For example to explain the why a 33% increase is proposed as against a (say) 5% or a 100% increase. Could we have the numbers to illustrate the quantity/quality issue in the network with the current validator set, and to explain why adding 33% more will address this issue. Also could you elaborate on the criteria (if any) that will be used for the new validators to be added.
I believe that increasing to 100 validators will make the network more decentralized but we also need effective communication between all validators for proposals in the future.
