Public Proposal: proposal to increase the number of validators to 60

I think there is a need for stakes for holders and supply that will increase after the crowdloan. I submitted a proposal to increase the number of validators by 5. I am waiting for your support.

Note: The referendum proposal that is active and proposes an increase of 10 validators does not belong to me.


preimage: 0xdb328dc02fc3cee0093073b82577d5e073c962e2c0fc496a1400583f32b73094


I’d be interested to hear from someone who voted “no” on this, as I’m not very versed in this, would love to hear a case for why the count should not be increased.

1 Like

The referendum is active. I am waiting for your support.

1 Like

Can you attach an image to the preimage in the referenda? Without that we do not know what we are voting on, and most likely will be turned down.

I made an offer that I thought was beneficial to the community. However, it was rejected. Increasing 5 validators was a very reasonable proposition. Next week I will submit a bid for 20 validator increments.

All we are asking is to add an image to the current preimage open, so we know on-chain what is the suggested change. From this preimage 0xdb328dc02fc3cee0093073b82577d5e073c962e2c0fc496a1400583f32b73094 we cannot tell what is the underlaying execution.
I am not sure what you meant about having the proposal rejected, since there is still 3 days of voting open, and if you clear the above you might get more votes in.


I don’t see how an increment of 20 validators would be beneficial for the community - or the security of the network for that matter.

Once Centrifuge becomes a parachain on Polkadot, validators will become obsolete and a handful of collators would theoretically be enough as the Polkadot Relay Chain validators will provide the security.

Right now there are 23 Centrifuge validators waiting to be elected in the active set and 10 of them have no on-chain identity so I personally would not be able to support a proposal to increase the active set by 20 validators.

Keep in mind the time it will take for you to first post your proposal off-chain here on Forum, make a request for comment to get feedback from the community, create a poll to see if there is enough community support and THEN move the vote to an on-chain referendum (these are the procedures for governance on Centrifuge). Then you have the on-chain voting process and the time it will take for the upgrade to actually be deployed.

I simply don’t see the short term effect of this proposal worth the potential risk by increasing the amount of validators in the active set.

But in the end, the choice is yours and it is a democracy so the outcome of the votes will decide.


All my reasonable offers were rejected with a no vote by wallets affiliated with the centrifuge team. It is acting as if there is sudokey. I see this situation as contrary to the functioning of the blockchain.
My referendum proposal will be for protest purposes.

Good evening TurkValidator
Your previous proposal failed due to the violations described above.
Some of them:

I advise you to follow the procedure outlined above if you want your proposal to be accepted.

You have the right to do whatever you want, but it seems to me that if your proposal to increase +5 numbers of validators did not pass, then why and what is the reason to submit a similar proposal for +20?
Such a large increase in validators can negatively affect the security of the network itself.

Your offer was rejected because you didn’t follow the instructions and also ignored all the messages that were sent to you here.
mikiquantum asked you several times to provide an image, but you never did this.

The centrifuge is a working network and a working product. The team can’t risk security just because you don’t want to follow the submission process.


Just submitting a preimage means we have no idea what exactly we are voting on. The preimage could be a malicious update and thus voting no is the only safe thing to do. All you need to do is submit the preimage for your proposal and others will see what it is they’re actually voting on. I’d be supportive of an increase by 5 validators (I also voted yes on the 10 validator increase) but I wouldn’t vote yes on a random preimage I know nothing about.

1 Like

I gave a proposal to increase the number of validators by 9.

The reason why I did not send the previous Preimage, I am getting an error as the same preimage was given before. I am getting response as Preimage duplication. It doesn’t accept my preimage because a similar proposal has been given before.