Persistence Validators: The Real Cost of Supporting the Chain

General
1

Persistence Validators: The Real Cost of Supporting the Chain

Hey everyone,

We want to raise a conversation that’s long overdue: validator sustainability on Persistence. My team has analyzed the validator reward data from last two years April 2023 → April 2025, and it’s clear that for most validators, the economics don’t just fail to work — they’re actively discouraging long-term participation.

This post is critical — but we hope, constructively so. We need to talk openly about what’s broken, and more importantly, how to fix it. The previous post about Restore XPRT Inflation to Strengthen Staking & Security has been utter failure with bond percentage decreasing even further.

:money_with_wings: The Economics Are Brutal

Let’s look at the numbers:

  • XPRT Price:
    For most of the last two years, XPRT has traded below $0.30, averaging closer to $0.20, with a brief 5-month spike up to $0.50. The price at the time of posting is less than $0.09.

  • Validator Revenue:
    Outside the top ~20 validators, at $0.30, monthly rewards in USD terms are often below $300, That’s not even close to covering basic operations.

  • Minimal Operating Cost:

    • Infra: $100/month
    • DevOps (4 hrs/month @ $50/hr): $200
      → Total: $300/month, minimum

This doesn’t even count:

  • Snapshot infrastructure
  • Relayers
  • DA integrations
  • Participation in governance & proposals
  • Marketing, community support, and outreach — which many validators are actively doing
  • Miscellaneous costs of operating a validator company.

And yet, the majority are running at a loss — for years.

:chart_decreasing: Existing Mechanisms Aren’t Working

There have been some well-intentioned initiatives:

  • :white_check_mark: A 5% base commission (better than nothing, but not dynamic or responsive to market conditions)
  • :white_check_mark: Infrastructure grants and delegation rotation programs from the foundation/community pool

But here’s the truth:

:brain: They haven’t moved the needle.

Delegations are still falling.
Validator churn is increasing quietly.
Top validators remain entrenched — and ranking inertia is real.

–

:brick: Validators Are Subsidizing the Chain

Let’s be honest: Persistence is running today because many validators are personally subsidizing the network. Worse, some continue to operate at a loss simply to remain in good standing with the core team, in hopes of future favor or support.

That’s not meritocracy. That’s not sustainable. That’s not healthy decentralization.

:handshake: It’s Not Just Infra — It’s Brand Building

Many validators go beyond tech:

  • They host AMAs, build educational content, help with onboarding, advocate for the project on social platforms.
  • They act as ambassadors — often more consistently than some centralized partners.

Yet those efforts are unrewarded, unrecognized, and unsustainable under current economics.

:wrench: Time to Rethink the Model

If we care about decentralization, resilience, and community, here are some ideas worth revisiting with fresh eyes:

1. Dynamic Commission Floors

Base commission should adapt based on price bands. In low-price periods, validators need more flexibility to survive. Right now, the 5% floor is static while costs are not.

2. Reputation-Weighted Delegation

Can we design a soft-reputation system that tracks:

  • Infra reliability
  • Governance participation
  • Contributions to marketing/outreach
  • Community engagement?

And use that to inform delegation routing from the foundation, community pool, or even suggest actions for wallets?

3. Transparent Delegation Reporting

Publish a quarterly report showing:

  • Which validators received community/foundation delegations
  • What metrics or behaviors earned them that
  • Who’s providing infra, outreach, and dev support

Accountability builds legitimacy. Delegators would trust the process more — and good actors feel seen.

4. Onboarding Program for New or Undervalued Validators

Create a rotational “on-ramp” for new or infra-heavy validators, where they’re given higher visibility + base delegation support for a fixed term.

This gives them a chance to prove value without bleeding money just to stay alive.

:compass: In Closing

Persistence is a powerful chain — but it’s built on the backs of validators who are burning money and goodwill just to stay involved.

This isn’t a side effect of the market. It’s a design issue. A social issue. An incentive alignment issue.

If we want this ecosystem to thrive — truly thrive — we need to start rewarding value, not just stake weight. We need to care about who’s building, educating, supporting, and running the chain, not just who got early delegations.

The tools exist. The people exist. The will… that’s what we need to see.

:police_car_light: And if nothing changes?

If there are no real action items or structural adjustments from the core team and the broader community, then maybe it’s time to have a more honest conversation about the future:

  • Should the validator set be reduced?
    Operating with 97 validators when only a fraction can survive is inefficient and wasteful. A smaller, well-compensated set might bring better outcomes.
  • Or should we consider forking the chain?
    • Create a persistence two github with mass redistrubution of wealth to reduce sell offs, better validator alignment and newer token locks and building a truly decentralzied and trustless future.
  • Or should we consider the nuclear option — sunsetting the chain?
    If the economic, social, and ecosystem incentives no longer support a sustainable standalone chain, maybe it’s time to explore alternatives:
    • There are chains merging together to form a better unified chain already.
    • Keep the brand and community alive, but in a form that actually benefits users and contributors — without bleeding validator resources indefinitely.

These are not small ideas. But they’re on the table if the current model continues to leave contributors stranded and unrewarded.

Let’s fix this — or at the very least, be honest about what the endgame looks like.

2 Likes
2

Thanks for starting the thread @amelia

Although I think your “nothing changes” scenarios are a bit doomish, the essence is correct for your story. The issue in the staking percentages is certainly not related to the APR as has now been proven (again) if you follow the charts. The issue lies deeper and requires a different approach.

Validator set reduction can be something to be considered, although it is certainly in general not the most popular route to be taken.

The idea for dynamic commission floors is interesting. Not sure if this will help though, since we have researched it on Osmosis in the past. It heavily relies on validators staying true (and not sybilling) and redelegating of assets of investors. The latter is especially difficult, since we can also conclude when looking to Osmosis that investors are in general set-and-forget type of people. Even when incentives are removed from liquidity pools which are not used anymore (and thus have a near zero APR) the liquidity is sticky and stays in the pools. So not sure whether this is a solution.

What has proven to work is randomizing the list for delegating, which requires big wallet providers to step up (but they don’t have the incentive to do so).
A transparent delegation program would also work.

And something which I deemed very interesting was the liquid staking solution from Crescent. The execution was kinda crap, but it ensured a very easy-to-use staking GUI which made sure that the delegations were exactly equally spread over a whitelisted set of validators.

2 Likes
3

Would also like to open this post up for validation from fellow validators.

We are requesting at least 5 validators to fact-check the data presented here. Please take a moment to:

Acknowledge whether the revenue/cost dynamics seem accurate based on your own experience.

Debate the validity or relevance of the statistics if you believe they are misleading or missing context, please voice it.

Add your own numbers if you are comfortable, anonymous or otherwise.

Let us make sure that we are working with truth and not just assumptions.
If the facts are wrong, let’s fix them. If they are right, let’s act on them.

And yes, if a post like this triggers a mass sell-off, then maybe we really do need to accept the doom. A healthy chain shouldn’t fall apart from a spreadsheet and an honest discussion.
If it does, that says more than the data ever could.

Let’s not run from that. Let’s face it.

1 Like
4

Hey! appreciate you jumping in and starting the conversation. Totally fair that some of the ideas in the post might not work as-is, and I get that my tone may have come off a bit doomish or aggressive but it’s hard not to sound that way when there’s an apparent lack of action on some really fundamental issues.

The real intention was to spark discussion — it’s a decentralized project after all, and we’re all part of it. But right now, there’s very little clarity: who’s actively working on Persistence, who’s leading it, and what’s being done to support chain security, validator sustainability, or XPRT value.

The team would benefit hugely from a strong XPRT, but they’re not exactly obliged to push for that — unless the plan is a slow rug, which I hope isn’t the case. Either way, more transparency and urgency would help a lot.

1 Like
5

Hello everyone.

Our team has recently joined the Persistence network. However, we will express our opinion.

  1. Regarding validators and a more honest and open distribution of delegations, we fully support amelia.

We need to review the delegation program. Develop a point system for rewarding active network validators. Consider both technical and humanitarian contributions.

As sad as it may sound, but we need to reduce the active set of validators to increase competition for receiving delegations from the project, and the concentration of tokens will flow to the validators who remain in the active set.

Use the carrot and stick, so to speak…

Governance bonus:

  • Reward active voting participants.
  • Burn part of the rewards for non-participation (passive delegation penalty).

2. Regarding the token price.

High inflation → pressure on the XPRT price → fall in profitability in $ equivalent → outflow of delegators and decrease in trust in the token → discouragement of participation in governance and staking.

What can be done.

Hold a forum discussion or vote on changing the inflation model.

The simplest thing is to burn part of the commissions (yes, we will earn less, but we need to sacrifice something). If the delegation program starts working and the funds are distributed to active validators, it will be easier.

If the partnership with Babylon works, then we can consider the option of reducing inflation through real profitability (Real Yield Model), as DYDX does.

3. Regarding marketing.

We can focus on marketing in the delegation program.

Now there are a lot of different platforms like Galxe, Layer3 where you can introduce a new audience to the product.

Create an NFT and attach utility to it, as ELYS is trying to do. Make a gradation and issue to long-term stakers.

Or those who have NFT receive additional rewards in pools on DEX. If people buy NFT, then use the funds to buy tokens from the market and burn them, for example, once a quarter.

2 Likes
6

@Cosmostation @staking4all @Stakecito @smartstake @ccvalidators @vladc1 @ArchitectNodes @ActiveNodes

7

@CosmonautStakes @polkachu @edward_stccapital @LeonoorsCryptoman @Cosmick777 @paranormal @POSTHUMAN @ACValidator

8

@High_Stakes @stakewolle @Ruslan-Stakewolle @StakeLab @StakeHub_Idyll @HyungGi_DSRV @jiyunkim @Edouard_Stakin

9

@LoulouCrypto @maxfoton @AltcoinPsycho
I’ve tagged several of you, and I kindly request you all to share your thoughts and actively participate in the discussion.

1 Like
10

Not really sure my comment will help but what you describe is the reality of all cosmos chains …
I don’t think there is a lot to change ( btw I will be happy if I have more delegations for sure lol )

It’s at each validator or service owner to know and decide if he want to continue with his Blockchain data analysis

Of course all be better.
For me nothing have to change I’m ok with the currents rules.

11

Hi @amelia,

Thanks for the ping.
First off, kudos for outlining the options including the nuclear one without shying away from the harsh reality.

Yes, I wholly agree with what you wrote. We are validating Persistence at a loss and have been for quite some time now (especially since we also generate snapshots and run an ibc relayer, so with additional operating costs. Like most validators, I guess).

The weekly rewards are about 200 XPRT, for context.

It is sustainable because other chains generate sufficient revenue to compensate, although if I’m being honest, in these market conditions it’s becoming increasingly less sustainable.

I have limited insight regarding the financial elements here – I’m more of an infrastructure person. The main issue I suppose is that the token has no particular utility at this time – holders can stake and sell or restake their rewards, and that’s about it.
There isn’t much point buying this token except to… stake it and sell the rewards.

Reducing the validator set, rebalancing the delegations… it won’t change that fact: the token has no utility other than speculative.

I was hoping that the current BTCFi project would change that when going live.

3 Likes
12

Yes, your yearly income is $744,84 (according to Validata) with current $0,0737 price. That equivalent of $62/month. It’s depressing.
Staking4All (#3 in Active set) gains $1 887/year or $157/month.
Something clearly needs to be done here with the volume of delegations or with the price of the coin.

1 Like
13

This might be the reality across many Cosmos chains, but that doesn’t make it acceptable.

Persistence launched even before Osmosis, Stride, and Stargaze — projects that found clear product-market fit and strong narratives. Years later, Persistence still lacks both. Other chains that couldn’t find their place, like Cerberus, Crescent, Mars, and Kujira, either sunsetted or pivoted.

The BTCfi narrative has also been dragged out with no clear roadmap, success metrics, or meaningful traction.

Struggling is one thing. Normalizing it is another. Persistence had an early advantage but has yet to show real vision or execution.

Even more telling, the Persistence team themselves operated a validator arm, Audit One, across multiple chains — and shut it down because it wasn’t profitable. If they couldn’t justify operating at a loss, how can they expect the broader validator community to keep delivering under the same conditions?

14

So… you’re saying that the team isn’t even hopeful about the BTC project anymore?

I’m following Jeroen on X and it seems that progress is being made actually.

Now admittedly, perhaps the current blockchain doesn’t naturally fit in that BTCFi thing and is effectively redundant.

I’m actually sensing from your message that the sunsetting option may be the preferred way forward?

15

I don’t say that’s acceptable… But the project need to have real value … And make value
The project that sunsetted is project who just make a Blockchain

Of course if Persistence don’t change thing it’s the only futur …

They just have to find a way to make value ( RWA, btc fi , etc … There is a lot of possibilities ) but a Blockchain for a Blockchain is not valuable …

I agree with somes of your point and somes of @High_Stakes

For sure validators don’t make enough money ( and it’s the case of a lot of cosmos Blockchain … ) it’s why for now I don’t make ibc on my self of with snow fall validators

1 Like
16

No, I’m not suggesting sunsetting — that’s not the goal here. The intention is to figure out how to sustain validator participation without forcing them to operate at a loss, and to have an honest discussion about what’s being done to support XPRT holder value. It’s also about demanding more transparency from the team — especially around who’s leading what, and how resources are being allocated.

While sunsetting might eventually become the only viable option, I’ve also heard about potential chain merges being explored, which could simplify things by consolidating infrastructure — so that validators aren’t forced to maintain 3-4 separate networks.

As for BTCFi — yes, I’ve seen Jeroen’s tweets and it does look like something is happening. But what exactly is “progress” here? Intent-based swaps are not new — they’ve been around for a while. What is Persistence doing that sets this apart? Why would this product gain market share or mind share over existing solutions? And what’s to stop more established protocols from just adding BTC support and outcompeting Persistence?

Also, it’s worth mentioning that the Persistence team is launching a DEX on Babylon — which from the outside looks like a copy-paste job. Maybe that helps the team financially, but how does that in any way impact XPRT, the Persistence chain, or its community? Where’s the link between this new product and the actual token and chain we’re all supposed to be supporting?

Simply writing some smart contracts and designing a UI isn’t enough. That’s not a product — and it certainly isn’t meaningful progress without a clear go-to-market plan or differentiation strategy.

17

Totally agree — a blockchain for the sake of being a blockchain isn’t valuable. There has to be real product-market fit and value creation, not just infrastructure and vague roadmaps.

You mentioned RWA, BTCFi, etc. — and yes, there’s potential there, but that’s the whole point: what exactly is being built, and how does it tie back to the chain and to XPRT holders? If the team is working on products that live off-chain, on other ecosystems, or with no clear feedback loop to XPRT, then how are we not just drifting toward irrelevance?

Look at how other Cosmos chains handled this:

  • Cerberus was a meme coin — it knew what it was and didn’t pretend otherwise.
  • Mars and Kujira built specific DeFi use cases, and when they saw the product/chain didn’t justify validator cost anymore, they communicated clearly and made tough decisions.
  • Crescent had one of the best DEX experiences in Cosmos and far more liquidity than Persistence, but they still shut down when they saw the writing on the wall.

These chains saved their communities and validators thousands by being honest — they didn’t drag things out or offer fake hope.

18

The real price of running and maintaining node, or the real price of being good validator?

Server ~100 USD per month
Person who maintain the node, update it - IDK, how much it can cost, but I agree with ~ 200$ per month

POSTHUMAN provide much more than node operation, we contribute for the development of Persistence on many different levels, and for me - it’s priceless

But for now, we are top-45 validator, with total stake 1,426,000 XPRT
With the price $0.06538 - we have ~ 70$ per month, in case if we will sell XPRT, but we don’t do it, and I think that this is mistake, because the price is only going down, and price for infrastructure in fiat, not in XPRT

For now, we are validating Persistence just because of friendship, because it’s totally unprofitable
This is kind contribution for the development of Cosmos Ecosystem
This is kind of charity

But of course this cannot continue indefinitely, and first of all we must provide charity to people who suffer from hunger, not to projects with multi-million dollar capitalization

1 Like
19

I really love the conversation in here. It is open, honest, realistic and showing drive from the participants.

It would be cool however if the team would also chip in @dneorej (who knows others to tag?)

20

It’s been more than two weeks since this post was published, and disappointingly, there’s still been no response from the team—no engagement on the issues raised, no signs of a plan forward. As a validator, this is disheartening, and I’ve honestly started to lose hope. Thanks @LeonoorsCryptoman for tagging @dneorej —hopefully this finally gets some attention.

At this point, I’m considering submitting a proposal to schedule an upgrade at a future block height, even though the code isn’t available yet. To be very clear—this isn’t about drawing attention or creating unnecessary noise. It’s about giving validators some relief from mounting operational costs, and signaling the need for clarity from the team. A controlled pause lets us resume cleanly—either by skipping the upgrade or implementing the changes once the team provides proper direction.

If anyone is willing to support, the address is:
persistence1ugeaqajr5cs6fcfjkzh2euwj96gtr8a7hcyu5q
I can raise the proposal immediately if someone can transfer 3500.1 XPRT or transfer 0.1 XPRT with authz to any account that has 3500 XPRT for a software-governance proposal.