This proposal seeks community approval to reduce the allowed active validator set parameter on the Regen Network blockchain from 75 to 21 validators.
Voting Outcome
Yes Vote: Approval to reduce the active validator set to 21 validators, initiating immediate action to address current challenges.
No Vote: Rejection of the proposal, necessitating reconsideration of the approach and criteria for validator set management.
Background
Of the options currently available, reducing the validator set can be implemented quickly using the current tech stack without requiring code changes. This action signals a proactive approach to mitigate effects of the token price decline. Other solutions, such as Interchain Security (ICS) and Proof-of-Authority (PoA), may take months to gain consensus and implement.
Problem, Solution, and Expected Outcomes
Problem
Low Token Price: The current low token price impacts the financial viability of validators.
Economic Viability: Many validators are operating at a loss due to insufficient rewards.
Unnecessary Security: With 73 current active validators, the security cost is excessive for the current network activity, leading to inefficiencies, consuming more energy and having a larger carbon footprint than is necessary.
Solution
Reduce Validator Set: Decrease the active validator set to 21, representing 67% of the current voting power.
Curate Active Set: Focus on validators who are aligned with Regen Network’s mission and goals of regeneration as was mentioned in Regen Whitepaper.
Less sell-pressure: With more rewards going to a fewer number of mission-aligned validators we assume there will be less sell-pressure from validators who use the token to cover costs.
Expected Outcomes
Reduced Carbon Footprint: Lower energy consumption as fewer validators operate.
On a technical note: we should consider stake distribution coming into this shift. If the proposal passes with existing stake distribution, it puts the validator set in the precarious position of having 1/3rd of stake delegated to inactive validators. In anticipation of this, I would propose that the Foundation redelegate our stake to the top 21 validators. We could simple updated our existing redelegation algorithm, which has gone through community review, to cut off after 21 as opposed to at 75. We would still have the existing bell-curve: so delegations are limited to the top five validators to limit stake centralization, and then limited to the bottom five as well so as to allow for some dynamism in the set.
I think this is a clear next step. There are a lot of follow ups such as the ongoing work on on-chain constitution/charter, the assessment of Partial Set Security, or shift to PoA and of course the continued work to expand access to ecocredits, participation in Regen Ledger governance and utility etc. But this is a good next step no matter what IMHO
We support the proposal if it is necessary, but we are out of the top 21 right now. However, we have been a genesis validator, so we are curious about how a more detailed criteria for the selection of validators will happen
I’m in favour, and would get knocked out. I’m also part of the genesis set, and I’ve restaked, and not sold. I hope this makes my intentions clear so I may continue
I’m within the top 21 (Chora Validator) and I’m in favor of this proposal. I think this is a good first step regardless of where the larger discussion takes us.
I want to echo concerns from validators who have been validating since genesis, who would like to continue validating, and who are not currently in the top 21. I think such actions merit recognition (and new delegations), but those validators may need to voice their position and desire to continue (as some have already done).
I think the validator working group is a good idea and will hopefully lead to more collaboration and tighter communication between validators. I’m one of the initial members of the working group and happy to support other validators who are seeking a position in the top 21.
I’m not a validator, so I would be unaffected by this change, and I don’t have any particular objection to the proposal. Having said that, I am having difficulty understanding how reducing the validator set will achieve these goals (with the exception of a small reduction in the carbon footprint of the chain and a better curated active set).
If user and institutional delegations are distributed between 21 validators rather than 50 or more, wouldn’t the % of commissions will be the same, but in fewer hands? How would this decrease sell pressure, without an agreement of some kind between the 21 validators to limit dumping their commissions?
Re: Economic Relief: If validators are operating at a loss, they can simply switch off their machines, so it doesn’t seem necessary to reduce the set through governance.
Couldn’t this be accomplished by concentrating institutional delegations within the top 20 validators and then letting the invisible hand of the market sort out the set size? Or am I overlooking something?
As an active and focus validator in Cosmos Eco system, we believe in decentralisation feature of Blockchain and reducing validator set size is in an opposite direction of that.
Regarding to the arguments of the proposal, I cannot catch the logic of the expected outcome. A more direct way to make validators more financial sustainable is to set the min commission level higher rather than making the validator set smaller. Validators are in fact a source of buy and also bring in potential delegators of the chain. If any validators cannot afford to stay, it is gracefully for them to exit by noticing her delegators and community with enough time and shutdown the machine properly so not to jail the node and cause damage of the delegators. This is the way blockchain works.
Kicking them out is not good to the community. Kicking validators out with good a reason to help them exit gracefully is also too funny. To shift VP, an redelegation operation just do but would not drive token price.
We are now on a position of 67 and likely to be out even though we join here as we like the concept of the chain and we can afford. We like to get delegation from the community so that we can be stayed in the active set. But for the proposal, it is not a good idea and we would vote a no.
Thank you for this proposal, I personally appreciate your efforts to make the Regen ecosystem better in all ways.
We as EarthistDAO acknowledge the current challenges of low token price and economic viability affecting many validators and understand the necessity to optimize the network’s efficiency.
We aim to remain within the active validator set as we believe our participation in the network is crucial to our broader mission of empowering communities and initiatives in our bioregion, starting with our hemp project and education programs. The rewards earned through staking are integral to our strategy, especially in the hyperinflationary environment of our country where retaining value in fiat money is impractical. We have passed a proposal to convert some of our for-profit initiatives’ fiat earnings into $REGEN to enhance our reward payment mechanisms. This will support projects like agrohomeopathy, ahimsa silk production, and mushroom cultivation in the future.
And as we onboard more ecological stewards to our DAO, they will be staking back some of their earned tokens, reinforcing their commitment and participation in regenerative activities. This reinvestment will also act as a pension for DAO members, providing them with long-term financial stability and contributing to the safety and security of the Regen Network.
We are here for governance in regeneration for Earth, which is why we also want to stay in the active set with redelegation. We look forward to continuing our collaborative efforts towards a regenerative future.
Basically, we are in support of the proposal, but we would like to clarify some questions:
a) Will the current validator set stay as it is and simply have a max cap of 21, or will there be an election process to choose aligned validators? If yes, how will this selection process work?
b) The main motive behind the prop is to reduce sell pressure. Is this reasoning backed up by past experiences of other chains or calculations?
No matter what outcome is, we would like to stay in the active set and keep supporting Regen and their vision.
By reducing the active validator set, you are further centralizing the network, making it more vulnerable to attack vectors.
Most of the nodes will be hosted by the same provider (Hetzner), who has a history of shutting down nodes for violating their Terms of Service (they are NOT crypto friendly).
Cosmos chains should be decentralized with as many validators as possible using as many different providers as possible.
Furthermore, you are simply voting to remove the competition and creating barriers to entry for new validators and developers to come into the active set.
The Chicken Coop Homestead votes No on this proposal.
This proposal only benefits the top validators in the set financially.
Politicians voting themselves more power and money, at the cost of chain health and security.
The Chicken Coop 
Homestead votes No on this proposal.