Minimum Validator Commision - Discussion

We are in favor of a forced minimum 5% commission, as required by a software upgrade proposal.

If a minimum fee would be implemented it would probably be best to do so during an already scheduled hardfork and introduce it as a governance parameter.

This isn’t necessary, it could be implemented at any time and still have a software-upgrade proposal to push it forward. I’d argue making it not part of the fork would be better, as it’d be a relatively simple, testable upgrade.

In this thread I’d like to trigger a discussion regarding a potential minimum validator fee, both from validators as well as from delegators. Do you think this should be implemented? And if so, how and what should the original limit be set at? Which pros and cons do you observe? Hopefully this will provide good input for next week’s ‘major’ monthly governance meeting.

I would argue for a 5% commission, but can also see a strong argument for 10%.

5% is what the cosmos ecosystem has rallied around, however it’s important to note that Secret has much higher hardware costs and “attention” requirements, for lack of a better term. I’d also add that many of our validators are more active in the ecosystem than external ecosystems. We should be finding ways to encourage that interaction, and raising the commission would help them commit to the network more fully.

Having a 0% commission option doesn’t provide anything for smaller validators. With Melea existing, they don’t offer any room for the lower validators to gain commission through the lower commission. Indeed, from my discussions with delegators, there are really 3 options for commissions that matter: 0%, 5%, and 10%. Anything between those shows no difference in interest.

4 Likes