Governance Proposal: Increment validator count by 5

A governance proposal to increase the validator count has been declined. More details on why the proposal was declined can be found here - Governance proposal: increase number of validators declined

There seems to be an interest to increase the active validator count and hence, I have started another Governance proposal to increase the validator count to 5. This additional count would continue to keep the network stable and secure. And I request your feedback on this.

This is the Proposal hash: 0x3150d5dc58f7818814d4b9faf9aea7f2267843d27c889d65b545c0d1f2bf9e02



Hi Ved.

Is there a special reason why the proposal to increase the validator set is for “5” and not “10” validators?

Currently every validator is oversubscribed because of a plethora of nominators and more additional validators would reduce the number of oversubscribed validators.

Are there any security issues with a higher set of new validators?

1 Like

Yes, polkadot consensus relies on an honest majority of at least 2/3rds. This means if we ever have an event where too many nodes are not responding this could threaten the network. The network is especially vulnerable to this when we have to do client upgrades and other changes where we heavily rely on validators to upgrade their nodes. The more we grow it the bigger the coordination. So rapidly growing the set is a lot riskier than doing so slowly and making sure everybody is able to keep up with the pace.

I would prefer doing another increase by 5 in a couple of weeks as opposed to 10 at once. I have seconded the vote. Thanks for putting it up @vedhavyas

Thanks for the detailed answer.

vedhavyas - +1!

Thanks for explaining this :slight_smile:

I have been asking this myself for some time.

New to voting. Do we wait till the new proposal - for only five more validators - becomes a referendum (which is when?), then cast a vote? And do we need unbonded CFG to vote and, if so, how much?

Totally understood and thanks for the explanation. Makes sense to increase the validators step by step. I will vote soon

A new proposal needs “Seconding” that indicates your backing for the proposal. Proposals with greater interest move up the queue for potential next referendums. For a seconding you need to delegate 10 CFG (unlocked) which you will get back at the end of the referendum. For a regular vote you need at least 0.1 CFG:

1 Like

So does that mean that if all my CFG are staked, I can’t second/vote?

That’s my understanding and a friendly reminder: never stake all of your CFG (transaction fees) and keep at least a small balance in your account

1 Like

Yea, I know thanks. I always keep like 0,4 - 0,5 CFG for transaction fees.

Had to learn it the hard way :slight_smile:

I am aligned with increasing the number of validators in a way that does not put the network at risk. But once we have significantly more CGF holders come to mainnet to stake CFG, how can we manage large volumes?

The proposal finally could be voted!