Parameter Change: Expand Active Set to 150

Our active set has now reached maximum participation. There are numerous smaller validators who are valuable members of the LUNC community that are at risk of being pushed out. We must not lose them.


  • Enhanced decentralization
  • Encourage greater community participation by allowing more community members to actively validate blocks
  • Reduction in circulating supply as new validators buy up LUNC for their self-delegation

What we should do:
Increase the active validator set by 20 to 150.

Posted by CosmosCapybara
Twitter handle (@CosmosCapybara)

Any & all feedback on this potential proposal is welcomed :slight_smile:

1 Like

All LUNC Delegators:

We don’t need more validators (at least now) ~ we need delegators to more evenly distribute their delegated Lunc to the less powerful (populated) validators. Also, avoid validators who vote arrogantly or/and ignorantly. (Use good research & judgment)!!!


Please stop spreading deliberate disinformation


That assessment (that I am wrong) is your opinion.

Please provide me wrong with detail ~ not just short and blurry attacks. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it… please help me believe differently.


Without sounding too brutal, isn’t it down to these smaller validators to better market themselves and ensure their value proposition is attracting new delegators?

I guess the real question is 120 validators too few? Can a valid case be made for 120 being too low?

As written it sounds like you want to expand the active set to protect some specific validators. That can’t be a good idea.


You pop up in every sensible thread and post factually incorrect “information”.

I don’t know what angle you’re playing here but it’s not to the benefit of the chain.

Shalom! :pray:

1 Like

You just want the influence of your corrupted validators to stay untouched. Ok, i get it.

We need more validators to fight the above.

You mean the validators who kept this (Lunc) chain going after the collapse? Those corrupt ones?

I said that delegators need to equally distribute delegations to the existing validators, we don’t need more ~ so all the existing validators are corrupt?

Your intelligence is corrupt or just lacking…

@Grizzly @RabbiJebediah @CosmosCapybara
You guys have to stop prematurely optimizing our ecosystem… Just forget about small efficiencies!

Community Members:
We need more stuff like this:

… The massive efficiencies.

I think more validators is a good idea for increased decentralisation and to not push out small ones. Not too long ago validator power was in the hands of a very few. This will help proof lunc against hostile actions.

1 Like

@RabbiJebediah it’s funny how the fake Rabbi without identity who is trying to steal from this community (yes you are one of those small validators you want to pay out and yes you want to enrich yourself with your ongoing spam proposals) then blame others for playing angles while you could not care less about the damage to this community. You are the angle player. Stop calling others sock puppets for you are the true sock puppet until you come out and declare who you really represent and how your really stand to profit from your well meant proposals. I don’t care if your twitter has only 1 follower, at least you’d start showing your face.

And no mate, just because you support other proposals than your own attempt at robbery does not make you one of the good guys. This community is awake enough to tell the difference.

@Grizzly Watch out Grizzly, you have been taken in by the Rabbi bullshit. I don’t agree with many ideas Koch puts up and no I don’t want world government - but, unlike Rabbi - Koch is not licking any validator boots as far as I can tell.

@CosmosCapybara thanks for this proposal, I am sure the community will support it in a vote, I will. Thanks.


I just want my Lunc stash to grow in value and for that value to be stable ~ that requires impeccable, groundbreaking designs. And, I am here to do my best in creating and supporting good ideas for Terra (classic).

1 Like

@Pascal ~ World government is inevitable, why not get a head start at supplying it to the people? Government is necessary ~ even we (TC Community) need a government. Too many individuals moving in too many different directions need something to synchronize them!

My Version of World Government: The Preservation of Individual Wealth, Autonomy, & Privacy

Imagine a world where votes are limited (1 per unique identity) and not double counted or counted without those unique identities’ authorizations. Imagine a world where the wealthy (whales) don’t call the shots ~ a world where everyone has an equal share in deciding the direction of community activities (where the majority rules ~ not the wealthy few)… imagine a world where the only instability in wealth is it increasing in value.

The blockchain allows for that world because data can’t be manipulated in a central storage. Everyone will know everything (that involves the operating system and government operations) and also know nothing (about the activities of the unique users) as long as we design/code things properly.

That’s a whole new take on world government ~ not the totalitarian version everyone is familiar with (the version that is in place today).

I’m promoting the Preservation of individual wealth, autonomy, and privacy! And, that i do for a different kind of wealth generation (spiritual). :pray:t2:

@Pascal ~ you make world government sound crazy, I hope you discovery it’s necessity and inevitability ~ the right version of it (of course). :heart:

I’m also tired of seeing all this premature optimization and money grabbing happening here… :sleeping: - so boring! :yawning_face:

Anyone wishing to spend 4million and put up proposals like you do needs to be identified. You yourself asked another party to identify themselves on much lesser $$ discussion. The only proof I need is proof of your identity and declaration of your conflicts of interest in relation to your proposal. Your unwillingness to do it voluntarily will do as proof until then.

1 Like

Why are you clogging up this thread with unrelated nonsense?

This isn’t the place to be having personal arguments.

Either discuss the proposal in the OP, or keep quiet.

Shalom! :pray:

What a classic my fake Rabbi. As usual you are blaming others for things you are yourself well known for on this forum. Would likely be pointless to let you know that you came to this thread babbling unrelated nonsense following a personal argument of yours rather than contributing to the proposal discussion? Who knows, maybe this conversation would not be here without that choice of yours?

Personal? There is nothing personal here until you are identified. Until then, I remain part of the effort to stop the unpersonal attempted robbery.

And I am loving this proposal and will vote for it and the bumps we give it with the rabbi nonesense surely can only help promote it lol.


This proposal is a clog in the system, (at least it’s not a scam like @RabbiJebediah puts up) ~ what’s the matter with clogging a clog to prevent it from happening? Sounds like a noble act to me.:saluting_face::satellite:

Spread your delegations evenly to validators who vote well! In the future, maybe more validators will be a good add ~ when the user population is up! That’s not now people. Perhaps we shard the chain some day, to have an ultra fast system. Sharding our validation process (with a larger population) will require more validators ~ and, those validators can validate on their phones on a sharded chain.

1 Like

@RabbiJebediah ~ your of the old world, a world centralized and manipulated by selfish desires fulfilled by deception.


I see it as factual based off the ‘Rabbi’s’ actions. If we do not defend Lunc ~ it’ll get sacked and drained and be nothing in the future.