>>VALIDATORS CHAMBER - A new governance structure<<


As recent events have shown, the current governance model has proven to have a misconception on how a real decentralized system is supposed to work .
The current structure has a large number of validators (150 by the time this proposal was written), but only four of them control more than 41% of it.
While the system appears highly centralized, it is clear that there is no leadership neither a management group who could give a clear direction for future goals.

In order to fix the highlighted above paradoxes, that is, to have a small group of validators controlling the blockchain, and a community which seems not to be really aware of what proposal-votes are about,

                                  *it is proposed*:

to establish a “Validators chamber”, an assembly in which existing validators participate.

------------------------------------------------Validators Chamber Articles----------------------------------------

  • Art. 1

The Validators Chamber is a closed public space on which validators having voting power above 0,11% are entitled to access and vote -currently 50 validators out of 130-.
The Validators Chamber takes place in a special section of the portal “Classic agora terra money”.
Everyone can have access as a viewer. However, only those validators that exceed the threshold of 0,11% can be entitled to participate actively in it. The validators admitted to the room, accept and undertake to respect all the constitutive articles mentioned here.

  • Art.2

The Validators Chamber evaluates and gives a “binding opinion” on all the proposals having as object:

  1. changes in the current burning/minting system;
  2. USTC repeg
  3. merging/hard forks;

The Community is always entitled to reserve additional matters as well as to remove some, without obligation of prior opinion by the Chamber itself.

  • Art. 3

The Chamber expresses on all the proposals submitted by the Community on any reserved subjects mentioned in Art.2.
Each validator, as a member of the Chamber, can express it’s personal will through voting power. The voting power inside the Chamber is quantified on a criterion “per head”: each validator admitted to the Chamber counts “as one”.
The deliberative quorum shall be calculated on the basis of a simple majority expressed on the number of voters. Abstentions therefore do not participate in the establishment of the quorum.

  • Art. 4

Validators belonging to the Chamber shall issue a prior opinion on all proposals relating to the reserved subjects. Only with the favourable opinion of the Chamber of Validators, proposals on reserved matters can be then submitted to the Community will.

  • Art. 5

All proposals concerning reserved subjects that have not previously received a positive opinion from the Chamber -eventually, also those coming from members of the Chamber itself- must receive a “No with veto” from all the members belonging to the Chamber.
Serious failure by one or more validators to this rule will automatically lead to the exclusion of that validator from the Chamber, for a period of one year.
Serious failure shall mean:

  1. any vote other than “no with veto”;
  2. failure to vote on proposals which have then passed, if it is proved that the validator’s veto would have prevented the adoption of the proposal.
  • Art. 6

Validators admitted to the chamber might designate one or more subject to filter all the proposals on reserved matters.
The individuals designated by the Chamber must have requirements of integrity, professionalism and competence. Individuals appointed by the Chamber may receive an appropriate compensation, if the Community agrees on it.
The Community, as well as the Chamber, can always remove for any reason the individuals entitled to filter the proposals.

The exclusion proposed and voted by the Community inhibits the re-election for the following 3 years.
The exclusion proposed and voted by the Chamber inhibits the re-election for the following year.

  • Art.7

The chamber designates its own President.
The President is not allowed to be a validator nor a subject directly or indirectly connected to one of them – also considering those validators not admitted ex Art.1. The violation of this constraint causes the President to lose his office, and the validator to be excluded by the Chamber -if member of it.

The President shall remain in office for one year, at the end of which he may be re-elected without mandate limits. In the event of prior revocation by the Chamber or in case of resignations, the President may no longer be appointed for the following year.
The Community can always vote to revoke the president’s mandate. The exclusion proposed and voted by the Community inhibits his/her re-election for the following 5 years.

The President shall be appointed in accordance with the same criteria as those laid down in Article 3.
The President can receive an appropriate compensation for the work done, if the Community agrees on it.

The President must:

  1. encourage discussion on the proposals accepted and submitted to the Chamber;
  2. establish a deadline for each validator to gather information and any legal/technical opinion before calling the vote;
  3. call the vote.
  4. prepare a governance proposal on which the Community will express itself.
  • Art.8
    In cases of extraordinary emergency, the Chamber may vote directly on matters deemed to be of extreme urgency, without setting a minimum period for debates.
    In cases of extraordinary emergency, through the binding opinion of the President and the subjects responsible for the prior assessment, any proposal on reserved subjects can be immediately submitted to the Community will.

  • Art.9

The Chamber can be equipped with any other internal rule not in conflict with the previous articles.
The Community shall request the suspension at any time of those internal rules deemed to be ineligible.

  • Art.10

Any change to these articles shall be approved by the community.


  • The introduction of Chamber aims to protect the collective interest in the presence of malicious actors who could significantly influence the Community. The Chamber is a safeguard and should not be understood as a place where to centralize power. By introducing so far reserved subjects, drastic changes which might cause serious damage are unlikely to happen.

  • The indication of a President and of one or more subjects who may filter all incoming proposals stimulates the formation of leadership and of a management group of people.

  • Compared with the actual influence some validators have, this new mechanism aims to make the decision process quite more balanced and fair.


  • This new mechanism could slow down the decision-making process and the reactive power of the Community in front of sudden market upheavals.

Any suggestion or comment will be very appreciated.
Also, any lexical improvement is highly appreciated, not being English my native language.



I will now prepare a reply.

To that.
If I were Chamber President I say that the entry threshold is reasonable.

Exponentially increase exposure via

Initially fill the chamber with 100 Voters.

Appoint a seat 20 Delegators from the active community.
40 Blockchain influencers and/or

Allocate funds to satisfy
%0 Validators Chamber Entry
%? Delegators Chamber Entry
%100 Remaining Initial Chamber Entry


Please answer some basic questions first about your proposition:

  1. If you are doing this to distribute VP among validators then this is useless cause they don’t want this. There is a proposal up for voting right now which isn’t passing. So anything that is against validators in general will not pass quorum on the Governance portal. So how will you manage to pass this if it becomes a proposal?

  2. Have you talked to any validator personally regarding your idea? What was the feedback? We don’t need the name or the validator. But you need to talk to one and get feedback and share that here

  3. Maximum 50 out of the 130 validators vote on proposals so you are facing the same problem that we are facing in the Governance portal. The result will be almost the same. In fact, there might be even less participants in the Chamber you are suggesting since participation in voting has been a challenge. How do you propose to solve this problem?

  4. Why are you doing this, personally? Are you a validator yourself or do you think there is any vote that has passed which shouldn’t have passed? There has to be a very good reason for you to propagate this idea. Cause the community has asked for a reduction of VP, not the creation of another layer on top of the current voting process. You will need developers, validators, and someone to run this entire operation and someone to be The President. These are all challenging tasks since you haven’t mentioned whether you are going to take the responsibility of any problems that might arise in this process, or whether The President is liable for such unforseen circumstances. Clarity on that would be highly appreciated

1 Like

Thanks for your concern.

1 & 3. The aim of this proposal is not to re-distribute VP, which won’t be effected at all as we know it now. Validators will still be able to vote as they want on any proposal that the Chamber will submit to the Community on reserved subjects.The Chamber would prevent quick and bad thought proposals on relevant subjects to be submitted to Community will, as recently happened with prop 10983. It should also encourage to have a place where validators all together can talk and discuss about any kind of opportunity (this Twitter chilidish thing is really awful and far to be the rapresentation of a serious organisation) and where people, by reading, can do better “their own research”. The new VP I’m talking about only describes the inner approval mechanism of the Chamber. Validators need to agree not to take any decision before the Chamber has expressed itself on those reserved subjects. Let’s assume that some of them break the rule. So what happens then? Nothing, except Community comes to know that some of them are not really working to cooperate and work for the Community’s interest, which might lead to a VP reduction (undelegations) for those validators who were kicked by the Chamber.

2 & 4. I don’t really understand these two points. Do I need any validator’s opinion to submit any idea which I believe it could help out this Community? Isn’t it the main idea behind the concept of a decentralized Community? I have a personal background on legal matters, with regards of companies legislation. As I could see here, there are several issues with the structure adopted, and sooner or later this Community will need to rediscuss the governance system. Like it or not.
I can give all the necessary support if this proposal, or a similar one, is going to be positively considered by the Community. People belonging to this Community usually have a huge and important background in coding, technological infrastructure, etc., but as far as I can see not on legal matters. The two things should be put together, especially when leadership position is vacant.
So with regards of my position, why do I help? Because I’m an investor, therefore I have interest for this Community to prosper. It is as simple as that. I do other things in my life, and I’m not aiming to have any kind of special position here. I wish I could help. That’s all. This proposal is a potential solution to the mess we have recently assisted. You like it? Good, let’s talk about it and see where it might be improved. You don’t like it? Throw it in the trash. :smile:

1 Like

By feedback from validators I meant whether this idea has been sent to them to check/review/comment on. You can reach out to some and tag some validators also here. So that they see this and comment on it. Their comments would be valuable feedback.