This governance proposal is intended to act purely as a signalling proposal. Throughout this history of the Cosmos Hub, there has been much debate about the impact that validators charging 0% commission has on the Cosmos Hub, particularly with respect to the decentralization of the Cosmos Hub and the sustainability for validator operations.
Discussion around this topic has taken place in many places including numerous threads on the Cosmos Forum, public Telegram channels, and in-person meetups. Because this has been one of the primary discussion points in off-chain Cosmos governance discussions, we believe it is important to get a signal on the matter from the on-chain governance process of the Cosmos Hub.
There have been past discussions on the Cosmos Forum about placing an in-protocol restriction on validators from charging 0% commission. forum.cosmos.network
This proposal is NOT proposing a protocol-enforced minimum. It is merely a signalling proposal to query the viewpoint of the bonded Atom holders as a whole.
We encourage people to discuss the question behind this governance proposal in the associated Cosmos Hub forum post here: forum.cosmos.network
Also, for voters who believe that 0% commission rates are harmful to the network, we encourage optionally sharing your belief on what a healthy minimum commission rate for the network using the memo field of their vote transaction on this governance proposal or linking to a longer written explanation such as a Forum or blog post.
The question on this proposal is “Are validators charging 0% commission harmful to the success of the Cosmos Hub?”. A Yes vote is stating that they ARE harmful to the network's success, and a No vote is a statement that they are NOT harmful.
|Yes||validator.network | Security first. Highly available.|
|Yes||2nd only to Certus One in GoS: in3s.com|