Validator Collective - Version 3.0

Proposal: Validator Collective - Version 3.0


Implement a collective that engages in a publicly viewable debate between validators and writers of subject proposals. Proposals would enter a new “pending” (pre vote) stage during this process. Proposals are restricted from proceeding until they have either passed a minimum validator vote or until a required amount of time has expired.

Additionally, in an attempt to work in harmony with previously passed proposal 8813 there will be added involvement within the debate process by representatives from Terra Grants Foundation when any proposal is submitted that makes requests for funding via the community pool.

Concluding validator debate the writer of the proposal will have a set time to modify proposal content based on any feedback they receive and or proceed to the next step, a public AMA.

If the writer fails to move the proposal forward within a set time frame they will be subject to fees due as a result of delay. If they retract the proposal entirely they forfeit all fees paid. All fees are paid to the oracle pool.

The AMA would include the writer of the subject proposal along with a set of 10 randomized validators as speakers. These 10 validators will have the opportunity to debate further in addition to inviting 1 community member per validator (10 in total) to engage with their own set of questions. One member of Terra Grants Foundation will join any AMAs related to community pool funding.

Once the AMA has concluded the proposal goes up for Vote. Standard practice of proposal vote remains the same.


  • Provides validators opportunity to voice opinion via public AMA
  • Promotes unity and constructive discussion within the validator set
  • Enhance the current submission structure with an aim to achieve better developed proposals as a result of validator feedback
  • Discurrage spam proposals by means of strict processes and fees
  • Eliminates proposal submission without adequate time for community review
  • Empower the community to make a more informed vote based on prudent debate, comprehensive opinions, and transparency with regards to how a proposal may positively or negatively affect the block chain.
  • Reduce opportunity for miss information to be spread
  • Create checks and balances within the proposal process

Proposal Details

The workflow would process in the following manner.

  • Proposals are submitted to Terra/Rebel Station Deposit with either full funding or placed up for public funding - Minimum 10% deposit of current fee structure required upon initial deposit. Full funding must be achieved within 14 days otherwise the proposal is removed. Deposited funds of any proposal that fails to achieve full funding is refunded to the community contributors minus the original 10% deposit which goes to the oracle pool. All refund guidelines are null and void upon a proposal achieving full funding.

    • Once full funding is achieved, proposals are processed in FIFO order and placed in a “Pending’’ state for validator review (Pending would be a new interface section added to Terra/Rebel Station).
  • Proposals will remain Pending until they are either removed by the submitter or put to Vote. Once in Pending, it is during the first 7 days validators of the collective will hold private internal discussion groups on Discord. Two proposals maximum will be reviewed at the same time at any given point.

  • There will be 10 discussion groups with a max of 13 randomly assigned validators in each group. Randomization of validators would be done through third party Discord Admins and randomization software. This action takes place on each proposal.

  • Discussion groups will have “Representatives” who are auto elected based on the highest Vote Power within each group. Since initial group assignment is randomized there will always be a diverse distribution of voting power across the collective group Representatives.

    • Groups will discuss the proposal through private chat or audio Discord channels for up to 7 days.
    • During this 7 day time the 10 Group Representatives will relay their group’s thoughts within a community facing chat/audio channel where the other 9 Group Representatives and Writer of the subject proposal can debate.
      1. LUNC Community can engage in chat via emoji and listen in on audio discussion only. (emoji red and green flag only)
  • In the event of a proposal requesting community funds, The Terra Grants Foundation will represent an 11th non-randomized discussion group and engage in the normal debate process as previously outlined.

Note: Prior to the 7 day validator discussion beginning, a consensus poll will be taken by all validators. Early consensus can be met by a 75% or more Ya/Na vote across all validators. If not met, discussions continue for up to 7 days. Secondary consens polls may be implemented throughout the discussion process on day 3 and 5.

  • Upon completion of the 7 day discussion or consensus vote, the writer of the subject proposal can choose to modify based on validator feedback or choose to move forward with a public AMA and make no change.

    • If they chose to modify, re-writes must be done within 7 days and resubmitted to Pending - for every day past this 7 day threshold the writer will incur a 5% fee based on the proposal fee cost structure. This ensures an expeditious flow of proposal governance. If the writer chooses to withdraw due to not being able to adhere to the 7 day window they forfeit 100% of the proposal fee as previously outlined. - All fees are paid into the oracle pool and balance must be settled in order to proceed with a Vote.
      • Public AMA is to be scheduled and held within this 7 day phase or extended with applicable late fees.
  • Once the writer has submitted a modified proposal to Pending or choses to move forward he/she (or representatives) are to host a public AMA on their platform of choice. This AMA is made up of Host/co-host (The writer or representatives of the proposal) and 10 speakers (The current set of rotating validator Representatives).

    • The public AMA is processed in this fashion; The host presents the proposal → each of the 10 representatives are given 2 minutes to voices their positions/recommendations → It then opens up to a 20 min max open discussion within the validator set and host → Upon this 20min set ending the AMA is opened to the public → each validator as may select 1 speaker from the community to ask a maximum of 2 questions, the speaker is not removed until the Representative which brought them up feels as though their questions are effectively responded to, this prevents underdeveloped Q&A from happening→ Upon conclusion of all ten community members having the floor the 10 Representatives and Host make any closing remarks. → Public AMA ends.

Note: If the proposal requests community pool funding a single Terra Grants Foundation member may also participate in the AMA but is not required.

  • It is at this point the Validator Collective must verify via “confirmation vote” (smart contract) that an AMA was in fact held. This will require a minimum 50% validator confirmation rate to ensure proposals are not pushed through without proper AMAs. (100% is not required due to possible validator vote delays).

    • Once confirmed, the writer of the subject proposal is granted the ability to move out of Pending and into an active vote or retract their proposal from Terra/Rebel Station altogether. They have 72 hours to make this decision. If they fail to make a decision the proposal will by default be removed from Terra/Rebel Station.
    • If they decide to retract or fail to move the proposal into vote for any reason they forfeit 100% of the fee to the oracle pool.
    • If they choose to resubmit after retraction or removal, the proposal begins at the beginning of the process.
  • Conditions for quorum and passing of vote, and veto remain the same.

Note: If a validator who qualifies to be a Representative declines to be involved in the process, it is noted within their profile’s engagement log - similar to the vote log. If they fail to engage during their rotation their duties are passed to the next validator in line within the assigned group and in order of voting power. Neither Validators or the Terra Grants Foundation are mandated to comply with this process, however it is encouraged as their involvement will empower their voice. The workflow however is manded and would be a structural change to the proposal submission process.

Development Requirements

Changes to the proposal process would have to be made within terra-station. This is to accommodate the “Pending” process and execute smart contracts based on prior mentions of delinquency or retraction fee structures. Additionally a Validator AMA confirmation vote function would have to be implemented.

Soft Launch Guidelines

Workflows of this proposal will begin immediately upon passing, however due to code requirements for the new “pending” status within Tera Station the delinquency/retraction fees will be inactive until coded. Coding is to be initiated immediately and completed within a reasonable amount of time based on difficulty requirements.

Coding to be requested from Terra Rebels or TerraCVita based on who presents the most cost effective bid. If both parties decline the bid, other avenues will be sourced by the writer of this proposal until fulfilled.

During this code-development period, proposals will follow the process manually without penalty fees and pending status interfaces. This means that during the Soft Launch period proposals will no longer qualify for vote until they go through the minimum process of validator debate and public AMA. Any proposal submitted post-passing of this proposal will be null and void if they fail to adhere to prior mentioned “Soft Launch Guidelines. Third party Admins of discord will perform Confirmation Vote of AMAs based on each proposal until code is implemented.


Admins duties of the Validator Collective Discord would be contracted to a third party support agency. They would be responsible for running the randomizer, assigning validators to groups, publishing a directory of which validators are in each group, initiating polls, and managing the separate channels for each proposal and respective chat threads. Such third parties would be chosen through validator vote. Each validator may elect their preferred third party.

User Interface Updates

Proposals are to be placed in deposit for funding only, once funded all proposals move to pending. A Pending Status would be added. All proposals will also be displayed under the Vote Tab once gone through the process. Validator engagement metrics will display if they have submitted their AMA confirmation vote. Also, a new proposal search mechanism should be implemented for all deposits, pending, vote and past proposal.

Graphical Explanations

1 Like

I don’t think we need this, the whole community should be involved and not just a small group of validators who talk blah blah blah

1 Like

The proposal passes no matter what. Validators are just there to debate. It exits their debate after vote or after a maximum of 7 days. The proposal then proceeds to the next step. The community has final vote to passing or denying all proposals.

It is not true, the validators have the power due to the absurd centralized voting system that gives power to those who have the most.


If you read the proposal it doesn’t state anywhere that the validators have any power over the final vote. The voting process proceeds as normal. Community members can still cast their vote just as any validator can cast their vote. Nothing changes

This proposal only creates a better review process that way the community can have the opportunity to received a more comprehensive opinion and facts on future proposals though the various review processes.


Although users vote individually at the end, it is the validators who have the power to decide the outcome of a proposal.

Creating a round table of validators is no different than the other proposals to create a council etc. It’s pure centralization.

1 Like

I believe the only issue you will face here is when engaging the validators. It is extremely difficult to follow up with them. They are busy people and they come online sometimes. So it’s mostly a follow-up that we do over and over again for the proposals, and then they reply. Sometimes they reply 10 days later. By that time, the proposal writer would have put up the proposal for voting. This happened with Faffy’s proposal. It was on discussion for 11 days after which he put it up for voting, but validators are replying now with the queries. They were probably not available; it’s difficult to get hold of them.

I agree with this engagement aspect that your expressing. Not all validators will be engaged (There not required) so I suppose the ones that are more engaged would command more of the public popularity as a result of their dedicated involvement. So they are incentivized in that way.

As a side note… I drafted yet another version that streamlines some of these processes but ads complexity to development required. I’m a bit discouraged with trying to craft the perfect solution.

I will take this version and my most recent versions and run it by some dev teams as well as validators to get their opinion. As well as Ed Kim and the Terra Grants Foundation. I do believe there is a better way to process governance that generates more concrete props but I’m also trying to not overcomplicate it.

A big motivation to this is providing the large set of the community with a clear review process by industry professionals that way they can feel confidante on how any one proposal may effect the chain and make a better informed vote.

Its funny how we have now had two props go through requesting community pool funding yet neither of them used the Terra Grants Foundations review process! Its literally there to validate and enhance proposals which build trust, yet proposal writers choose to not use it. It doesn’t make sense.

1 Like

Engaging content with much food for thought. Whether such a process is required remains open to debate based on individual opinion…

My opinion is that it is required as it will serve in its most limited way as a solution to prevent spam proposals or to reduce the likely hood of a money grab proposal that lacks timelines of accountability, scopes of work, or appropriate risk vs reward that said proposal may have on the chain.

Our governace and proposal submission process was build for a central entity (TFL). It doesn’t function effectively in a community driven environment. It needs overhauled and re designed with new checks and balances that better suite a decentralized community.

1 Like

Thank you for the response. The explanation addresses my concern as well surrounding extended power in the hands of Validators through the process provided for by this prop. In essence it adds a layer of accountability and certainty to a decentralised voting outcome; which is welcomed…

This is called centralization.
You are suggesting a handful to allow or disallow proposals to see the light of day
Being a Community is a blessing and a curse - on one side you were allowed to create this thread to promote your idea, but at the same time - would this non-enforceable and heavily centralized proposal ever see the light of day if such Validator Collective existed? Doubtful.

Having million of voices, yet having a handful decide whos voice matters goes against the whole idea of Governance being available to every investor.

1 Like

I’m sorry… but you clearly didn’t read the proposal.

The validators objective is solely to provide feed back/review and debate for the proposal writer to fix any errors and for the community to witness collective validator debate in an effort to reduce poorly constructed proposals and reduce miss information on any possible scams or proposals that could harm the chain more than it does good.

The proposal can proceed to governance vote no matter the opinion of the collective.

Please re read and reply with a valid objection.

Enforcement through Validators is centralization.
Otherwise everyone has the option to ask literally anyone for feedback before posting. It’s not something that would need a proposal. It’s common sense.

If you want to make a collective team of folks who can give feedback - then you certainly do not need to make a Governance proposal discussion for it and can instead proceed to talk to Validators directly either by making a post for Validators who might be interested or using their Discord to gauge their interest. After that - you can simply announce the option to Community.

If the use is entirely optional and not one bit mandatory then I don’t see the need why you would even have following mentioned:


  • Provides validators opportunity to voice opinion via public AMA
  • Promotes unity and constructive discussion within the validator set
  • Enhance the current submission structure with an aim to achieve better developed proposals as a result of validator feedback
  • Discurrage spam proposals by means of strict processes and fees
  • Eliminates proposal submission without adequate time for community review
  • Empower the community to make a more informed vote based on prudent debate, comprehensive opinions, and transparency with regards to how a proposal may positively or negatively affect the block chain.
  • Reduce opportunity for miss information to be spread
  • Create checks and balances within the proposal process


It’s literally making all the extra steps for something that is completely optional and can be ignored entirely. So what is the incentive?
If there’s a param change that asks to reopen an IBC channel - should there be:
Public AMA, a overly complicated validator approval process, 7 day validator discussion, consensus poll etcs and whatnot, plus User Interface updates (you lack the funding part and who would do it), contracting a third party support agency costs money - again, funding is missing.

I’m sorry. Is this supposed to be entirely optional or was it meant to be enforced as a norm?
Since if it’s optional and it’s not going to be free… Why have it? Just so there’s less proposals cluttering this space?

I understand your rebuttal here and concern for cost vs utility if in fact its voluntarily. Ideally all validators would be more engaged but sadly that may be along way from now or never. Ideally it would be mandatory as I still believe it would provide greater value in proposal review and direction for the chain.

Is it realistic to implement this, probably not, especially when you add complexity of code updates and validator requirements.

However I do believe there needs to be something done with the governance process with regard to proposal review and public AMAs. Something that provides ample opportunity for any prop to have holes poked in it and have a thorough risk vs reward analysis. Right now most props and the promoters of them focus only on the reward and not on the risk. This lack of AMA and review processes creates a situation where miss information can be spread or where people dont understand the risk because the promoters of the prop focus only on the reward. This is a problem.

I am entertaining the idea of organically creating a Collective in Discord and welcome all that want to engage within that process. Perhaps after concept is proven and adoption is greater than the current standard it would qualify for a text governance change.

That’s kind of where I’m at with it as I do understand the hurdles within delivering on something like this.