Proportional Staking Rewards to Promote Decentralization

UPDATE: Ok, apparently the idea as presented is a nonstarter but can we use this thread to discuss ideas for decentralizing voting power?

The below idea is in the interest of maximizing decentralization organically.

I’d like to put forward the idea of recalculating staking rewards to be based on some weighted proportion by validator size (smallest relative to largest active validators). The smaller the validator the larger the reward and vice versa. Obviously staking rewards would not be directly proportional to validator size, but weighted enough to add an incentive to backing smaller validators; this weighting is also up for discussion. The total staking rewards would not change. Since I’m no expert and just throwing out the idea I’d like to put forward the following questions:

Technical: Is this technically feasible? What technical challenges would a change like this present?

General Reception: How do average users feel about this idea? How do validators feel about this idea?

Implications: What consequences or implications come from a change like this? Negative impacts? Are there other benefits?


I am absolutely against having our sustainability being punished for being successful and would not support this. We are not even the the most profitable node, same goes for citadel, so this idea is literally just targeting us and anyone else who earns a large amount of delegations. If it was successfully done, then we will immediatly launch a 2nd validator.

If people want to grow their validator then they need to build products and earn delegations and if people want to solve the problem of voting power then the solution needs to equally apply to all validators. People should be rewarded for running good infrastructure and building products, people should not just be arbitrarily rewarded “because decentralization”.

I think a better idea for answering to voting power decentralization would be to only allow validators to vote with 25% of delegated voting power, then allow individual accounts that vote to do so with their full voting power.


Valid points. I’m only proposing this to decentralize voting power. I guess this could be a brainstorm thread about that instead of a specific proposition?

If people want to discuss solutions to voting power decentralization that do not arbitrarily impact roi, then happy to discuss. I would be happy to see a change where validators can only vote with a smaller % of delegated voting power or hear other creative ideas that equally apply to all. I will say that this idea would successfully shift voting power from validators to stakers, thus further empowering enigma, but we are dpos so unless we want to move away from dpos that may just come with any solution that shifts power away from validators. I am not 100% sure what the best solution is tbh. I just don’t want to be arbitrarily punished financially for being successful with any solution chosen, i am perfectly fine with validators having less power overall.

@SlyStone Evidently you have overlooked a key technical factor - hence your questions … so i’ll try to explain simply…
Running and maintaining of validator node equipment is no easy task even with automation. Equipment is costly and the time needed to invest in operating an outstanding validator cluster is lengthy.
Technically speaking from a validators standpoint the goal posts keep shifting with more and more contracts being launched and utilized. We are constantly adding more and more hardware/servers to our validator clusters to cope with the next big wave of traffic. (This hardware and labor is not free)

What you are proposing here I find counter productive for the network from a performance and redundancy standpoint.

Your model operates by the following analogy:
Its like Amazon Prime shifting its payment protocol to reward transport company investors highly that only operate with 1 delivery van…
What happens? … it increases the Parcel load onto that 1 delivery van…
That 1 Delivery van in no theoretical or practical sense could ever have enough room to carry the amount of packages that amazon requires to be delivered and would buckle under the load. Plus it would be unable to deliver packages in time.

I hope this helps you put this thread to rest :slight_smile:


Have to agree with @moonstash and @dbriggsie.

Cant agree to this proposal I believe their is long thread discussion on this on the cosmos forms and why this was rejected.

1 Like