Reopening the minimum validator commission debate
Hey everyone,
Following the recent referendum #1307 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 — 51.8% AYE vs. 48.2% NAY — which shows how divided opinions are on the matter. Many valid arguments were made both for and against the proposal:
✅ For a minimum commission
• Helps smaller and independent validators remain viable.
• Prevents a "race to the bottom" that benefits only the largest operators.
• Aligns with Kusama’s approach, ensuring long-term network sustainability.
• Increased hardware costs and the recent inflation reduction make low commissions unsustainable.
• ...
❌ Against a minimum commission
• Limits free market competition, where validators should set their own fees.
• Forces nominators to pay higher commissions, reducing staking returns.
• Higher DOT prices in the future could naturally resolve the issue.
• ...
While I personally supported the proposal, I do feel that 5% might be a bit too high. What if we considered a lower threshold — say, 3% minimum commission instead? This could help balance sustainability for validators while still keeping staking attractive for nominators.
Comments (1)
Unless the deposit is going to be in place, please refrain using OpenGov as a sentiment gauge. In order for a referendum to be valid the deposit MUST be in place so that it gets any valid use or enacts any change.
We actually support this idea, and also believe that a 2% or 3% minimum fee is a sustainable value for both validators and stakers but please maintain the discussion and referenda separated and more importantly only launch the referendum if you or someone else actually plans to place the decision deposit.