Prop 6: [HIP3] Proposal to Increase Validator Set Size to 50

Simple Summary

This proposal recommends increasing the Hippo Protocol mainnet active validator set from the current limit of 22 to 50 validators. The primary objective is to improve decentralization, promote validator diversity, and create more opportunities for new entrants to participate in network governance and consensus.

Abstract

As the Hippo Protocol ecosystem grows, expanding the active validator set is a necessary step toward achieving greater network security, community participation, and resilience. The current cap of 22 validators limits decentralization and creates a high barrier for new validators. Increasing the cap to 50 will allow broader participation while remaining well within the operational performance constraints of Cosmos SDK-based blockchains.

Motivation

• Encourage Decentralization: Concentration of voting power in the top validators increases centralization risks. Expanding the validator set helps dilute this concentration.
• Strengthen Governance: With more validators in the active set, governance decisions will benefit from a wider and more diverse set of stakeholders.
• Ecosystem Alignment: Other Cosmos SDK-based chains (e.g., Cosmos Hub, Osmosis) support larger validator sets—some as high as 150 or more—without compromising performance.

Documentation

• None

Specification

• None

Rationale

• Technical Feasibility: The Cosmos SDK has been successfully run with 100+ validators in production environments.
• Governance Participation: More validators means more independent votes, reducing the likelihood of cartelization or undue influence.

Drawbacks

• Delegation Fragmentation: Some delegators may split stakes further, requiring more active delegation strategies.

Unresolved Questions

• None

Security Considerations

• More Attack Surface: A larger validator pool offers more targets for attacks and increases coordination complexity.
  • Mitigation: Promote strong security practices (sentry nodes, HSMs), encourage geographic diversity, and foster better off-chain communication among validators.
• Performance Issues: The Tendermint consensus engine faces increased message load (O(N2)), potentially slowing block finalization.
  • Mitigation: Continuously optimize the consensus protocol, enhance network layers, recommend robust validator hardware, and implement strong monitoring.
• Economic & Decentralization Concerns: Rewards are diluted among more validators, possibly making it harder for smaller ones to stay profitable, thus centralizing effective power.
  • Mitigation: Align incentives for smaller validators, educate delegators to diversify their stake, and explore technologies like Distributed Validator Technology (DVT) to empower smaller participants.
• Operational Overhead: Managing more validators and ensuring client diversity becomes more complex.
  • Mitigation: Develop automated tools for management, actively support diverse client implementations, and provide clear documentation and community support.

Prior Art

• Cosmos Hub

Backwards Compatibility

• This is a parameter change and does not require a binary upgrade.

Test Cases

• None

Reference Implementation

• None

Future Possibilities

• NA