Governance proposal: increase number of validators declined

The governance proposal “increase the number of validators” was declined. Find below the comment from Lucas in Discord"

“I just wanted to share that I voted no on the current democracy proposal to increase the validator set by 60. This would more than double the validator count. There are less than 60 validators in the waiting set and a lot of them are unknown accounts. Adding all of them in one go is unwise and could endanger the stability & security of the network. I would propose to whoever put in the proposal to resubmit with a smaller increment (e.g. 10) which is something I would personally support and doesn’t threaten the network. Additionally I would very much appreciate for people who put forward such proposals to also post on to start a discussion around any democracy proposal”.

Please remind that governance proposals should start in the governance portal/forum for discussions


The argument for not increasing the number of validators by 60 makes sense and I agree with it.

Currently it’s not possible to stake unless one is above the threshold for minimum amount of CFG staked. A quick sample showed that this could be any amount between 40 - 1300 CFG for a given validator.

With the upcoming Polkadot parachain auctions and listings of CFG on exchanges afterwards will certainly bring more CFG holders to the community and we must assume that many of them are interested in staking their coins.

So either increasing the number of validators with a smaller number (e.g. 10, like you suggest) or increasing the maximum numbers of nominators per validator should be considered.

I haven’t tried to put in a proposal yet as I have to read a bit more about how it works before I dive into it.

1 Like

Thanks for your feedback. You can vote onchain with “Aye” or “Nay” to raise your voice and express your opinion in the portal. There is a new vote open dealing with the same issue

1 Like

Thanks. Will definitely take a look at it later today.

1 Like

Just want to know who declined the proposal, the community or some admins? Because as I can see from the Democracy tab, there are more Ayes than Nays

No admin can decline the proposal, it was declined by super majority approve (=amount of CFG). You can find the statement by Lucas at the beginning of the forum thread

understood, thanks for clarifying.

Just to clarify, there are two corrections to the post:

  1. I did not use any “admin” powers to decline the vote, I voted with my CFG like anyone else can (and should)
  2. the vote is not over yet and I could very much be overruled in the next 2 days for which the proposal is still active as the vote is not over yet.

I voted with a very high conviction and believe strongly that no token holder should vote for this proposal though because of the risks outlined. I hope others will agree here and vote as well!


Are you referring to the minimum amount of CFG the validator must personally stake? If so, what is the minimum? has stake of 9.9

Thanks to you, Lucas. That’s exactly why governance proposals have to start in the Forum to avoid misunderstandings and to open them to the community for discussions :wink:

No, I am referring to the minimum amount of CFG than a nominator should stake in order to receive rewards, i.e. then amount of CFG in top 128 with the LEAST amount staked for a given validator.

As I said, it was just a quick sample - I didn’t go through all validators.