Reduce the Active Validator Set to 100 or less

Governance Proposal: Reduce the Active Validator Set to 100 (or less on discussion)


Summary

This proposal seeks to reduce the Terra Classic active validator set to 100 validators in order to improve network performance, security, decentralisation quality, and long-term sustainability.

Over time, the expansion of the active set has unintentionally lowered the economic and operational standards required to participate as an active validator. This has resulted in inconsistent performance, increased downtime, weaker governance participation, and a dilution of accountability.

Reducing the active set to 100 validators restores a higher entry threshold, ensures that only committed and technically capable validators participate in consensus, and strengthens Terra Classic as a serious production blockchain.


Motivation

Validator participation is the backbone of Terra Classic. Validators are responsible for:

  • Securing the network
  • Producing blocks reliably
  • Participating in governance
  • Running infrastructure professionally
  • Acting in the long-term interest of the chain

As the active set has expanded, several structural issues have become increasingly apparent.


1. Declining Validator Performance Quality

A growing number of validators enter the active set at extremely low stake thresholds, often without:

  • Redundant infrastructure
  • Monitoring and alerting systems
  • Upgrade readiness
  • Governance engagement
  • Long-term commitment

While experimentation and learning are important, consensus participation is not the place for hobby-grade infrastructure. Poorly performing validators introduce measurable risk for both delegators and the network as a whole.


2. Reduced Economic Security

A larger active set spreads stake more thinly across validators, reducing the economic cost of misbehaviour and weakening network security incentives.

By reducing the active set:

  • The minimum LUNC required to enter the active set increases
  • Validators must demonstrate community trust through delegation
  • The cost of malicious or negligent behaviour becomes materially higher

This aligns validator incentives with the long-term health and security of the chain.


3. Governance Signal Dilution

Governance is not simply about voting “yes” or “no.” It requires:

  • Understanding proposals
  • Reviewing code and implementation details
  • Acting independently rather than following sentiment
  • Participating consistently

An oversized active set has led to:

  • Inactive or absent governance participation
  • Rubber-stamp voting
  • Validators active in name only

A smaller, higher-quality active set improves the signal-to-noise ratio in governance decisions and leads to better-informed outcomes.


4. Professionalism and Reputation of Terra Classic

Terra Classic competes for relevance in a multi-chain ecosystem. External developers, integrators, and infrastructure providers assess chains based on:

  • Validator professionalism
  • Network stability
  • Upgrade reliability
  • Governance maturity

A reduced active set signals that Terra Classic prioritises quality over quantity, reinforcing confidence among serious builders, stakeholders, and long-term participants.


5. Encouraging Serious Validators, Not Excluding Participation

This proposal does not exclude smaller validators from the ecosystem.

Inactive validators can still:

  • Operate as standby validators
  • Build tooling, dApps, or infrastructure
  • Earn delegation organically
  • Improve performance and reliability
  • Re-enter the active set through merit and community trust

The goal is not exclusion — it is raising standards for consensus participation.


Proposal Details

  • Change: Reduce the active validator set size to 100
  • Mechanism: Adjust the MaxValidators parameter via governance
  • Scope: Applies to consensus participation only
  • No slashing or removal penalties beyond existing protocol rules

Expected Outcomes

Short Term

  • Increased minimum stake required to enter the active set
  • Removal of consistently underperforming validators from consensus
  • Improved block production consistency

Medium Term

  • Stronger validator accountability
  • Higher governance participation quality
  • Increased delegator confidence

Long Term

  • Improved network reputation
  • Stronger economic security
  • A sustainable validator ecosystem focused on reliability and contribution

Risks and Mitigations

Risk: Reduced Validator Count Lowers Decentralisation

Mitigation:
Decentralisation is not measured by raw count alone, but by:

  • Geographic distribution
  • Independent operators
  • Infrastructure diversity
  • Economic stake distribution

A smaller set of independent, competent validators provides stronger decentralisation than a larger set of inactive or poorly maintained nodes.


Risk: Smaller Validators Feel Discouraged

Mitigation:
Clear communication that:

  • This is a quality threshold, not a gatekeeping mechanism
  • Standby validators remain vital to the ecosystem
  • Entry remains open through delegation, performance, and trust

Conclusion

Reducing the active validator set to 100 is a necessary step to reinforce Terra Classic as a secure, reliable, and professionally operated blockchain.

This proposal restores meaningful economic thresholds, strengthens governance, improves network performance, and ensures that consensus participation is reserved for validators who demonstrate commitment, capability, and accountability.

Quality consensus participation benefits delegators, developers, validators, and the chain as a whole.


Voting Options

  • YES – Reduce the active validator set to 100 to improve performance, security, and governance quality
  • NO – Maintain the current active validator set size
  • NO WITH VETO – Oppose this change as harmful to the network
  • ABSTAIN – No strong position
1 Like

Hello Lunanauts,

Thank you for this topic as I believe this would definitely improve and streamline validator performance. I would suggest while we are addressing this matter we could also address other issues of concern that would further improve performance and provide a more suitable environment.

I would suggest the following:

-Create a clause that prevents impersonation or miss representation of any entity or exchange as a validator.

However the proposal looks spot on and this is something that can be addressed at a later time if needed.

1 Like

Look, ma! Zero innovation + shuffling the same deck of cards AGAIN!

If you read the proposal properly and the key points why, you would understand… if not, please don’t comment! I want serious discussion, not silly comments thanks

Reducing to 100 would have no impact imho.
Currently the 100th position requires ~15M LUNC and even position 90 is only 110M.
So I don’t think the proposed change would make sense unless you tighten it even further.

“hobby-grade” Infra does not really pose a risk to the network in the lower ranks, limiting the available positions does not prevent hobby-grade infra in higher ranks either.

While inactive validators in theory could gain stake organically, BUT most UIs do not show inactive ones and staking with inactive vals does not earn you any rewards, meaning there is a lower incentive to do so at all.

I am not against reducing the set in general, but I think the arguments in the proposal are not well-fitting.

3 Likes

This is why we need a discussion. 100 was a starting point, I’m up for going even lower, 90, 80, whatever…