Certainly the outcome of this will affect delegations from DCF, and I would also expect the same to be true of Agoric, but can’t speak for them. I had assumed we would look at our delegation program in the wake of this proposal (after all, there is always the possibility that the proposal does not pass).
On a different note: You allude to “It was mentioned that this would have happened multiple times but still waiting.” Not clear to me what that refers to. But, FYI, the DCF re-delegation happened early last year and has been complete for some time. We have not adjusted since then, other than to deal with those exiting the set and to move some funds into treasury.
I’ve asked in the discord in June about any refresh in regards to the validation program and team shared that hopefully that would have happened soon.
I understand if it takes some more time as there was a readjustment already beginning of the year but if any change will be made to the active set I believe it would be fair to first refresh such delegations
I had the opportunity to speak one-on-one with a few stakeholders, who are largely in favor of the proposal. I believe we have allocated a decent amount of time for the proposal discussions, alongside personally pushing the discussion link to stakeholders.
I would partially disagree with pushing until 2nd September and more, but if it’s the consensus, we can wait.
There is always a chance that the proposal does not pass; henceforth, the delegation discussion should ideally happen post the proposal. We would also have a better idea of the redistribution of the stakes and active set validator contributions on running relayers, etc.
I’m not crazy about the delay either, but Agoric’s validator relations person (AntMan) in on holiday until 2 Sep. He usually supports with not only comms but also with more direct help when there are changes. I would expect that if this passes, he will have some comms work to do. Given that, I would defer to the request to delay, but that’s just me – I wouldn’t call it a consensus!
Encapsulate support reducing the active validator set and adjusting inflation accordingly.
On geo/ASN decentralization: let’s take a pre-announcement snapshot (T0) of geography, ASN, cloud/host, and other factors that drive the Nakamoto coefficient, and weight decisions toward validators who were already diversified before T0—not just those reacting after this proposal.
Implementation ideas: set caps per cloud and country, ensure no single jurisdiction/provider can form a 2/3 quorum
As a quick hygiene step, flag and de-prioritize validators running on Hetzner to reduce single-provider concentration, which the community has repeatedly discouraged.
The one argument I have heard wrt Hetzner that I cannot evaluate: multihomed validators run in Hetzner while it’s available, with secondary or fallback nodes in other cloud providers.
I think from an exposure point of view, that’s not compelling: that protects against Hetzner shutting down validators (as they have done before), but not against a Hetzner-focused attack corrupting validator execution (across any over-exposed comet chains).
I have been following Agoric since its inception and have been an active member of the Cosmos Community (previously involved with a Cosmos L1).
I love Agoric, and came across the disproportionate validator stakes. (:
TL;DR: Proposal 107 didn’t take effect because it used a now-deprecated format. The proposal itself was good, however the recent network upgrade to Cosmos SDK 0.47 means only the new format is acted on.
We’ll work with ciberexplosion and others to help get a corrected proposal out in the updated format. This matters because the upcoming SDK 0.50 will require the new format going forward.
Thanks to everyone who participated—we expect to see an updated proposal soon.
I agree that team needs to get stuff together. Key informations haven’t been updated for too long including website contents. @dtribble@Iulia_Mihailescu I understand developing product is your priority but you will continually lose trust from the community with such behavior.
