Hey everyone,
I'm building a project on the Cosmos SDK and I've hit a point where I need to make a real design decision around governance — and I'd genuinely love input from this community before I lock anything in.
THE PROBLEM I'M TRYING TO SOLVE
Standard Cosmos governance puts a lot of voting power in validators' hands. Delegators technically vote too, but in practice most never do — and validators end up speaking for everyone. That's a centralisation risk dressed up as decentralisation.
I want something closer to true on-chain democracy, where every staked token is a real voice, not a proxy.
MY PROPOSED MODEL: VALIDATING GROUPS
Instead of the classic "validator first, delegators follow" setup, here's what I'm exploring:
1. Anyone can initiate a Validating Group — no need to have the full minimum stake upfront.
2. The group opens for contributions — others can join and stake together until the minimum is reached.
3. Once the threshold is met, the group activates as a validator.
4. On governance proposals, each group votes internally first — every member votes proportionally to their stake.
5. That internal result (YES/NO) is automatically submitted to the chain as the group's vote.
The key shift: no validator overriding delegators. Everyone inside the group has a direct say, weighted by their contribution.
WHAT I'M WEIGHING
Validator influence — Standard: High / My model: Removed
Delegator participation — Standard: Optional/passive / My model: Active & weighted
Entry barrier — Standard: High (full stake) / My model: Low (pooled)
Complexity — Standard: Lower / My model: Higher
Sybil risk — Standard: Moderate / My model: Needs more thought
MY QUESTIONS FOR YOU
- Does this model genuinely improve decentralisation, or does it just move the power problem somewhere else?
- What attack vectors do you see — especially around Sybil resistance within groups?
- Is the pooled validator group idea something you'd participate in as a staker?
- Are there existing projects doing something similar I should be studying?
I'm still early in this decision and nothing is set in stone. Honest critique is more useful to me than encouragement right now — tear it apart if you see problems.
Thank you
