[Re-upload / Common -> Agora] Critically low activity of Terra Classic Validators in official governance

General
1

Classic Chaos Podcast - S1E30 - Governance Ghost Town 2.0

Terra Classic Validators are skipping votes like it’s a sport—47% of proposals ignored, and 12 validators didn’t even bother once. Decentralization? More like delegation without responsibility. Tune in!

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5QlptDVeM6fJjPRVxknWFo?si=da482381b6ff4873

image
image800×800 693 KB

Conclusions from the analysis of Terra Classic validator activity / voting in the last 100 official Governance proposals

  1. Average number of “Yes” votes among validators - 23
  • Validators rarely support proposals, even when they are beneficial to the community. This suggests an alarming level of disengagement or lack of understanding.

  1. Average number of “No” votes among validators - 10

  2. Average number of “No with Veto” votes among validators - 4

  3. Average number of “Did not vote” votes among validators - 6

  4. Average number of governance proposals in which validators did not vote- 43

  5. Percentage of all votes validators did not vote - 47%

  • Suggesting that governance participation is treated as optional by nearly half the validator set.

  1. Percentage of all votes thare are “No with veto” - 4%

  2. Number of validators whose percentage of votes in which they did not participate is greater than 50% - 48

Exact list of those validators: Orion - Auto-Compound KuCoin LUNC Node moonshot :anger_symbol:5% fee (0% fee soon):anger_symbol:Re-Stake​:anger_symbol:info: 1maxfee.com​:anger_symbol: TCB @THORmaximalist AutoStake :shield: Slash Protected stake.systems | autocompound NITAWA Baywatch Stakin CryptoPlant :fire: LUNC DAO :fire: ShimaInu20 Terraport FreshSTAKING Cryptonian | Auto-compound Stake Shark DFLunc.app&DFSwap Coinage x DAIC Autism Staking :puzzle_piece: OneStar 2.5 PERCENT - Porn Fan Club Lunc Community ITALIA​:italy: SafePoint :fire::fire:LuncFire :fire::fire: Wave LBUN Project :folded_hands: uGaenn :sun_behind_cloud: NodeOps BInodes DELIGHT 8moon 01node LunC4Ever | 0% Fee Bit Cat​:cat_face: Toseus Validator NodeStaked AuraStake DSRV terrazzt4 MoonStation INFINITY AIRDROPS :high_voltage: Luncstation Flying Stakes :rocket: KK Validator | == == :rabbit: THE MATRIX :rabbit: eXion hashed

  1. Number of validators whose percentage of votes in which they did not participate is greater than 60% - 44

  2. Number of validators whose percentage of votes in which they did not participate is greater than 70% - 38

  • This trend highlights that active governance is left to a minority, while the majority stay passive.

  1. Number of validators whose percentage of votes in which they did not participate is greater than 80% - 33

  2. Number of validators whose percentage of votes in which they did not participate is greater than 90% - 27

  3. Number of validators did not vote at all in governance - 12

essentially collecting staking rewards without contributing to the ecosystem’s decision-making process.

Exact list of those validators:

KuCoin LUNC Node AutoStake :shield: Slash Protected Stake Shark Wave 01node NodeStaked DSRV terrazzt4 MoonStation INFINITY AIRDROPS :high_voltage: Luncstation KK Validator | == == hashed

14.Validators with less than 50% non-participation account for only 16 out of 60 total validators. This means that 74% of validators participate in fewer than half of all governance proposals.

Implication: The majority of decisions are made by a small fraction of validators, centralizing power within an ecosystem designed for decentralization.

  1. The 12 validators who did not vote on a single proposal collectively control 6% of total voting power.

Implication: Even validators contributing nothing to governance still receive rewards and influence delegator trust.

  1. Selective Voting

Validators tend to participate more in proposals with direct financial or structural implications, such as burn tax changes or staking reward adjustments. Routine proposals often see negligible participation, revealing a pattern of self-interest.

  1. Validators in the lower 50% of voting power skip more than 70% of proposals on average.

Implication: Lower-tier validators are effectively absent in governance, concentrating decision-making among top-tier validators.

  1. Among the top 10 validators by voting power, 3 skipped more than 60% of proposals, contributing disproportionately to the overall non-participation rate.

Implication: Even leading validators fail to fulfill their governance obligations, despite their significant influence.

  1. Proposals with direct financial implications (e.g., burn taxes or staking rewards) have disproportionately higher participation compared to routine or technical proposals.

Implication: Validators prioritize self-serving votes, neglecting broader community and ecosystem needs.

/////

Embrace the Chaos. https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/classicchaospodcast