Hey everyone,
Following the recent referendum <a href="../referenda/1307">#1307</a> on setting a 5% minimum validator commission fee, I wanted to reopen the discussion and get more community input on a potential compromise.
The referendum was close &mdash; 51.8% AYE vs. 48.2% NAY &mdash; which shows how divided opinions are on the matter. Many valid arguments were made both for and against the proposal:
✅ For a minimum commission
&bull;&nbsp; Helps smaller and independent validators remain viable. &bull;&nbsp; Prevents a "race to the bottom" that benefits only the largest operators. &bull;&nbsp; Aligns with Kusama&rsquo;s approach, ensuring long-term network sustainability. &bull;&nbsp; Increased hardware costs and the recent inflation reduction make low commissions unsustainable. &bull;&nbsp; ...
❌ Against a minimum commission
&bull;&nbsp; Limits free market competition, where validators should set their own fees. &bull;&nbsp; Forces nominators to pay higher commissions, reducing staking returns. &bull;&nbsp; Higher DOT prices in the future could naturally resolve the issue. &bull;&nbsp; ...
While I personally supported the proposal, I do feel that 5% might be a bit too high. What if we considered a lower threshold &mdash; say, 3% minimum commission instead? This could help balance sustainability for validators while still keeping staking attractive for nominators.

Hey everyone,
Following the recent referendum <a href="../referenda/1307">#1307</a> on setting a 5% minimum validator commission fee, I wanted to reopen the discussion and get more community input on a potential compromise.
The referendum was close &mdash; 51.8% AYE vs. 48.2% NAY &mdash; which shows how divided opinions are on the matter. Many valid arguments were made both for and against the proposal:
✅ For a minimum commission
&bull;&nbsp; Helps smaller and independent validators remain viable. &bull;&nbsp; Prevents a "race to the bottom" that benefits only the largest operators. &bull;&nbsp; Aligns with Kusama&rsquo;s approach, ensuring long-term network sustainability. &bull;&nbsp; Increased hardware costs and the recent inflation reduction make low commissions unsustainable. &bull;&nbsp; ...
❌ Against a minimum commission
&bull;&nbsp; Limits free market competition, where validators should set their own fees. &bull;&nbsp; Forces nominators to pay higher commissions, reducing staking returns. &bull;&nbsp; Higher DOT prices in the future could naturally resolve the issue. &bull;&nbsp; ...
While I personally supported the proposal, I do feel that 5% might be a bit too high. What if we considered a lower threshold &mdash; say, 3% minimum commission instead? This could help balance sustainability for validators while still keeping staking attractive for nominators.

Reopening the minimum validator commission debate

Hey everyone,
Following the recent referendum <a href="../referenda/1307">#1307</a> on setting a 5% minimum validator commission fee, I wanted to reopen the discussion and get more community input on a potential compromise.
The referendum was close &mdash; 51.8% AYE vs. 48.2% NAY &mdash; which shows how divided opinions are on the matter. Many valid arguments were made both for and against the proposal:
✅ For a minimum commission
<ul>
<li>
Helps smaller and independent validators remain viable.
</li>
<li>
Prevents a "race to the bottom" that benefits only the largest operators.
</li>
<li>
Aligns with Kusama&rsquo;s approach, ensuring long-term network sustainability.
</li>
<li>
Increased hardware costs and the recent inflation reduction make low commissions unsustainable.
</li>
<li>...</li>
</ul>
❌ Against a minimum commission
<ul>
<li>
Limits free market competition, where validators should set their own fees.
</li>
<li>
Forces nominators to pay higher commissions, reducing staking returns.
</li>
<li>
Higher DOT prices in the future could naturally resolve the issue.
</li>
<li>...</li>
</ul>
While I personally supported the proposal, I do feel that 5% might be a bit too high. What if we considered a lower threshold &mdash; say, 3% minimum commission instead? This could help balance sustainability for validators while still keeping staking attractive for nominators.

Hey everyone,
Following the recent referendum <a href="../referenda/1307">#1307</a> on setting a 5% minimum validator commission fee, I wanted to reopen the discussion and get more community input on a potential compromise.
The referendum was close &mdash; 51.8% AYE vs. 48.2% NAY &mdash; which shows how divided opinions are on the matter. Many valid arguments were made both for and against the proposal:
✅ For a minimum commission
<ul>
<li>
Helps smaller and independent validators remain viable.
</li>
<li>
Prevents a "race to the bottom" that benefits only the largest operators.
</li>
<li>
Aligns with Kusama&rsquo;s approach, ensuring long-term network sustainability.
</li>
<li>
Increased hardware costs and the recent inflation reduction make low commissions unsustainable.
</li>
<li>...</li>
</ul>
❌ Against a minimum commission
<ul>
<li>
Limits free market competition, where validators should set their own fees.
</li>
<li>
Forces nominators to pay higher commissions, reducing staking returns.
</li>
<li>
Higher DOT prices in the future could naturally resolve the issue.
</li>
<li>...</li>
</ul>
While I personally supported the proposal, I do feel that 5% might be a bit too high. What if we considered a lower threshold &mdash; say, 3% minimum commission instead? This could help balance sustainability for validators while still keeping staking attractive for nominators.

- Problem Statement: Reopening discussion on setting a 5% minimum validator commission fee after a close referendum (#1307) with divided opinions.
- Significance: Impact on smaller validators, network sustainability, staking returns, and free market competition.
- Proposed Solution: Consider a compromise with a lower 3% minimum commission fee to balance sustainability and staking attractiveness.
- Expected Outcomes: Achieve a consensus that supports both validators and nominators while ensuring network viability.

#2774 Reopening the minimum validator commission debate

No Active Proposals