Threshold
PolkaWorld votes NAY
While we support the idea of reducing inflation and increasing validator rewards in principle, this proposal raises concerns about the reduction in validator count also limiting the number of available cores.
Although current demand from parachains is not high, permanently fixing the validator set at 500 could become a bottleneck as the network scales. We don’t see this as a sustainable long-term solution.
That said, the proposal introduces an important topic for discussion, and we encourage the community to build on it with further dialogue and refinement.
Read all feedback here.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.
The Wish For Change track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received two aye and three nay votes from ten available members, with four members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
In the referendum, several voters expressed varied opinions, with some abstaining due to conflicts of interest or uncertainty about the proposed changes. A few supported the initiative, believing it could enhance the economic system of Kusama and Polkadot, while others opposed it, citing concerns over parachain availability and the need for a comprehensive discussion on network health. Overall, the feedback highlighted a desire for balance between decentralization and economic viability, alongside the necessity for clearer communication and understanding of the implications of the proposed changes.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate
📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate
Although this a radical proposal, I actually appreciate seeing more people interested in the wellbeing of Kusama and trying to find solutions that have positive effects for tokenholders in general, and simultaneously lookout for nominators and validators. I particularly appreciated that the proponent took into account validators in different regions of the world and I share the wish of having high quality validators that ensure the security of Kusama.
However, I believe we should first evaluate the effects of Will and Daniel’s other recently executed WFCs before taking such an extreme approach. It would also be interesting if the proposer came to a space such as AAG for the benefit of clarifying their ideas and discussing with the community, instead of just posting an AI generated ref.
Aside from the downsides already mentioned in previous comments, I would like to remind the proponent that although today there is not a lot of activity in Kusama parachains, we are expecting an influx of new projects, as a consequence of “A New Kusama Vision” WFC #498. This will result in:
I am personally looking forward to the new revival of Kusama and all the chaos that will come with it ;)
Edited
A temporary reduction in capacity makes sense when demand is so low, that includes validators and cores(if hoarding is fixed), we could go even lower if it means we can adjust inflation to attractive values while maintaining validators profitable. In the long term however Kusama should keep its welcoming spirit and low entry barrier that allows small players to participate in the network, JAM might also change the mechanics but let's leave that for the future and fix the issues we have today.