I can appreciate that.
Better safe then sorry 
The commission rate for āDubaiā was erroneously raised. We will be switching in back to 5%. As for the āSingaporeā validator, we are planning to raise it to 10% so that will prompt redistribution to other validators.
@Jan im glad @FrenchXCore was able to give such a detailed explanation. I share the same sentiments as you with regards to security vs commission rate. You might want to check out slashing conditions.
2 Likes
With us reaching full capacity on f(x)Core network, we need to start looking out and how to streamline our communication channels with the wider community and also how to relay messages to the delegators easily. I would like to hear some of your pain points on communication channels as validators and also possible solutions on how we can improve collectively.
2 Likes
Hi @Richard !
Thereās no real pain point on our side, as our main communication channel is Twitter, and I donāt mean to use another one to exchange with our delegators.
However, I fully share your opinion wrt. sharing with a wider community.
FunctionX community seems pretty āclosedā, and we need to provide a wider community with opportunities to enter into FunctionX ecosystem.
Right now, in Elrond network for example, many projects are being initiated using a launchpad. But is there any way to create a token on the FunctionX blockchain ? Because thatās a great way of attracting external users and strong projects. But I didnāt see any code allowing that currently in FxCore.
Another way would be to push āharderā for decentralized XPOS to reach the market and the users.
But beside that, I donāt see any huge user entrances in FunctionX until we have the āf(x) variableā DEX.
Eventually, we would need a stronger FXDM strategy (I donāt throw bananas to anyone !!) : I think itās just starting, but as a validator, our commission fees are not enough to bring up content on our own, unless team delegators decided to incentivize public validators to take some initiatives as well.
5 Likes
I agree with every word you say!
A more aggressive and bold brand building strategy is needed.
1 Like
I had a suggestion a while back is to allow delegators to send a direct message with our telegram accounts.
Update to this is that we could have a direct link ( can be within our validators bio with the telegram DM or twitter dm (and icon) set up to dm messaging.
I think @BlueStitch has a list of all the suggestions I ever made. Could be worth seeing some old ones.
Also the aforementioned suggestion lead me to another one, which was we could use a true Decentralised chat messaging app on fx core ipfs, made by the team or someone.
As one of many examples:
Decided to make a challenge.
Like FX on Coingecko.
It turned out to increase the number of likes from 2900 to 3165.
This is also a result. But weak. The community is large in number but weak in activity.
We need to fix this. And stop being humble.))
https://twitter.com/Chesnow2/status/1462557045840879625?t=1Hn-cOjXGtJcs2A8iffd3A&s=19
https://twitter.com/Chesnow2/status/1467564974574870537?t=KnAoF4XuO7fqhEjOKY5yHQ&s=19
https://twitter.com/Chesnow2/status/1467882354039472138?t=QVsKNbzhav6hTuDzvU7lTw&s=19
+1 Chesnow
Very good point raised. will definitely consider that and do a bit more research on that.
1 Like
Hello 
, I just want to add to above points.
That each validator should have direct contact with there delegators example dedicated telegram group for each validator. Or keep active on twitter and social media.
One important key points of validator is to engage with community and there own delegators in matter of goverance.
This practice will increase the validator trust to community and outsider in matter of I do this task to support network.
Once this point is reached you can start see users promote you even larger to there related network etc.
Validators will need a service to interact with audienceās and this can be achieved with either using company tools and dapps or build there own custom for traction.
So regarding governance i do suggest each validator create a voting session on Forum - TG - social media to gather goverance voting side from there own delegators with note for delegator you can always say opposite by revote.
So you can have a clear direction were to head with goverance voting.
Being inactive from interaction is only causing reputation downgrade due to inactivity.
After testing out this we can find the best possible way to future communicationās.
Public Validators have there first test now in goverance participation they should show off there muscles not being quiet. 
Last to go is if validator is inactive of duration of proposals letās say 10 days out of 14 gets penalty + vote for decommission for a malicious activity as this harm network by not using voting power given properly.
Let me know what you guys think .
Another note we at blindbox gaurdians we building hub for nft and games to as main deployer on fxcore which can be used by validators to create collections or join the hub with custom project, I have full report to give by next week in forum .
1 Like
This definitely plus point to have message sent over network via signiture with bonded addresses. This only not ensure the receiving but ensure the originality of the sender via the address signiture. Its like broadcast feature
I think itās essential part of communication and will solve lots of contacting burden
It can be Abit costly for validators to send bulk messages but itās worth it as quicker way to communication and also peel any inactivity penalty to be given in future.
I think each validator having a custom project small or big really wonāt matter much if it attracts users.
We have upcoming token creation validators can use this to create token and build its own governance eco system. It will generate interest from users maybe even more than other tools and generate revenue for validator but this need dedication and being active always.
I suggested down to add broadcast option (bulk message sender) to make announcements or moves of validator easier.
We can all find custom solutions and keep it alive for long term plus awating for fx foundation tools (prime products) and fxdm raise.
Not saying that validators should rush a project for temporary use . But create something can be upgraded with upcoming tools to increase its use case .
With these practices we will gain several attraction from decentralized communities and the appeal to join fx core .
Let me say this also. I have one person I follow on Twitter he made in one year 5 million dollar plus just from decentralized network ( NOT WASH TRADING). There is probably thousands made same or evern more.
So with more options and sub projects made by the most trusted members which is Validators will grab users with confidence and let delegators attract there network with confidence.
This is my view in this 
All,
I would strongly support :
(1) any solution giving penalty (slashing) to non-voting validators (validators can still āabstainā), but that would mean modifying FxCore code to include that new penalty : not sure if itās feasible without unsecuring tendermint or anything else (needs to be checked out),
(2) in the meantime, given the fact that most FX are detained by huge whales and/or team, and at least until the EGF 75M FX fund is used, to reduce the quorum to the cumulated ownings of 50% of delegators owning less than 900k FX (1796 delegators out of 1845 as of 12/31/2021), which would represent something like 30M FX, thus a quorum of ~7%ā¦
Otherwise, that just means it is impossible to get a public proposal to pass without the top 50 delegators (2.7% of delegators were owning 51% of the voting power as of 12/31/2021), which defeats the whole purpose of decentralization !!
3 Likes
This statistic is shocking. Thank you very much for posting this information.
Of course, this needs to be double-checked ! So, donāt go spreading this all around, please ! (though Iām not meaning you would, but I prefer to keep it between us until checked).
2 Likes
@KuzoIV very good points raised. i think we should not only just engage with the delegators but also engage in an effective way, making it really easy and convenient for them and also ensuring that the message gets delivered. in that regard, i think yes we should act as individual validators but also work collectively. there are so many blockchains and tokens out there. channeling our community engagement together would help bring in more people into our network.
@FrenchXCore with regards to penalty from abstaining, that will probably have to be written to the blockchain and that requires governance.
2 Likes
Regarding the channeling I think we can all collaborate in reaching out community, most should understand we are building base infustructure for a Blockchain ground zero.
This will require extra work than simply running a validator to collect block reward and fill a spot in top 50. Should be more into how to grow the infustructure and the usecases. We can all give hand to each other to work things out and be more active.
There are many good ones in community already offering hand with no returnās. But you canāt know someone need help without them asking for help.
With that said we already function ecosystem and run as decentralized so any action harming this to me count as malicious activity which brings next point.
I were thinking of slashing percentage for inactivity 10 days out of 14 days period of Proposal and avoid that by selecting one of votes options (selection must be done)
And leaving the 4 days for delegator to revote if the oppose the choice of a validator, Incase that validator didnāt communicate with Itās delegator one way or another.
And increase the amount of threshold of quorum from 40% to 51%
(This rule binds to public and company validators)
I think this way will motivate other users to apply for EGF as voting power will be the brute force in this and also make the goverance voting more compete into yes or no. Not compete to barely fill on time.
Because when looking at previous goverance filling, most been filled with few hours difference from deadline if not mistaken.
In other hand if EGF isnāt really focus from validators and company to user to interact with and more likely push use of EVM to run on fxcore then this should be clarified clearly to community and should help In directing focus of building.
Let me know what you all think
And whatās the best option and numbers to be added in such proposal to upload it asap. If my last note about EVM is false .
I care about the health and the activity of network also the security and decentralization path thats my reason for opening such discussion.
1 Like
Change governance to auto-abstain instead of slashing Ā· Issue #2256 Ā· cosmos/cosmos-sdk Ā· GitHub this is a previous discussion about such topic on Cosmoās. We can learn to counter auto bots moves and add justification relay message for such action of activity anyhow these points show how unserious a validator can be.
Currently on mainet they have no slashing for Validators.
Also another thing letās see how this proposal will go then depends on maybe company will pause the EGF if majority want to see build goes from company side only at first for a reason or another.
Wait for voting activity filter. Then again launch it by then delegators can adjust the situation.
I think this will be good solution.
What you think, itās always good to have plan B
1 Like
Nice reference. 3 things emerged :
- a justification field for validators when voting
- a slash penalty for non-voting delegators
- the issue of auto-abstain scripts by some validators to avoid slashing : but delegators should also have in mind that this is not a āgood validatorā way of working, unless justified.
2 Likes
this is so important for everyone to notice. If we really want to build a decentralized network here this needs to be adressed. Otherwise this will be just a centralized network with some crowd funding investors attached to itā¦
2 Likes