Yes totally agree with reducing the min ONEs required. At current price $0.19, the person needs $1,900 USD to setup the node.
Knowing that a lot of countries especially in africa makes around $600 and less per month, it is a barrier for them.
7 Likes
I think this is a great idea! We have a lot of good validators now and a year ago it only cost $60 for 10K ONE. If we want diverse validators from across the globe, everyone needs to be able to afford it. Plus Iâd rather keep most of my ONE on a Ledger anyway. 
4 Likes
Would love to see this pass! Great Idea 
4 Likes
What would prevent a malicious validator from continuing that activity into a 2nd epoch, or multiple epochs?
1 Like
They are banned for life so they would have to start again. Apart from literally not being worth itâŚ
2 Likes
Hey buddy could you perhaps review this and set up a poll to see how many will support this below. After 24-48 hours we can see about creating this into a Hip and move forward (:
2 Likes
I doubt people will be opposed to lowering the requirement. I could care less what a validator starts with as long as they are continually reinvesting through self-staking part of the rewards they reap.
If possible we should get rid of the 100 min delegation also, no reason I can delegate 100 then undelegate 99. Unless there is some valid reason for it.
3 Likes
Do you agree with lowering the entry requirement from 10,000 ONE to 1,000 ONE?
- Yes
- No
0 voters
2 Likes
Done 
If anyone has any other feedback or questions/concerns, feel free to post. If not letâs vote and get this moving forward! 
As much as I like the idea, but I am looking in different perspective.
I get the point that we can lower the entry level so anyone can enter to become eligible. That is great.
But, what is next after this? is it not enough that we already have 122 eligible. I think we are dealing with the symptom and not the real issue. This is a temporary solution or part of solution of the bigggest hurdle which is delegation.
Just my two cent.
2 Likes
@StakeIt.ONE is this vote, a temporary measure to reach the 200 validator goal?
If itâs a permanent entry requirement maybe another voting option for *lowering requirement to another amount, could be added?
I didnât see if the harmony team came back to any potential security issues, but from what Iâve read itâs not worth the time for bad actors.
2 Likes
This would not have to be a permanent change. As time goes on and the value of ONE goes up, we may have to set it lower, or for other reasons, we may find that we have to increase it later. For now, this is intended to help us reach the goal of at least 200 fully elected validators. If it leads to more than that, well thatâs even better. We can always change this later.
Bootstrap is in the works and Harmony will be helping validators to get and stay elected. Tranquil finance has said that they planning to support further decentralization as well. And as I myself grow and earn enough ONE, I personally would be glad to help other validators come up and stay elected and there are others that currently do the same and Iâm sure more will join us. We are Harmony, we are ONE
Itâs good to reduce the barrier to entry for starting a validator
However, youâre right. This wonât help anybody get elected. That is a separate barrier altogether; a barrier that has made little progress on these forums in the last 6 months
But not all validators want to increase the number of elected validators, as it will cost them staking rewards and profits
For some, the overall health, security, and decentralization of the protocol is not the driving force behind their actions
2 Likes
The Bootstrap is clearly a step in the right direction [EDIT: The Bootstrap failed to pass because some large validators prevented governance from being put in place to limit the exact type of action that Binance just recently made 
]. It shows that at least some people care. But there is uncertainty that it will significantly increase the number of elected validators. I also think itâs very likely that once the Bootstrapâs support is over, many of the validators they were subsidizing will become unelected again
Below is part of my comment in the Bootstrap thread:
I also agree with Rutilant that it will be hard to grow the Bootstrap validators beyond the level that the VDAO is investing in them. For starters, the high APY of ânewâ validators is definitely an attraction that helps them grow their delegation/delegator count
And secondly, a lot of validators simply hit a âceilingâ that is very hard to break through. You suggest ending the bootstrapping of a validator if they reach 1.2x EMS (6.27M) before the end of the 100 epochs. But out of the 161 elected validators listed on staking.harmony, 87 (54%) of them are below that 1.2x (6.27M) threshold! So I think it will be incredibly rare that you would ever need to end the bootstrapping prior to the conclusion of 100 epochs. It goes to show how difficult it is to grow your delegations as a new/smaller validator
Also, if Iâm reading it correctly, if a bootstrap validator doesnât reach a large enough delegation to remain elected without VDAO support, and there are other validators waiting to be brought into the bootstrap program, that the currently elected validator will lose 100% of their VDAO support after 100 epochs? I think thereâs a high likelihood that many of these validators (perhaps 100%) wonât achieve the necessary level of delegation required to remain elected once the VDAO pulls its support. Theyâd be starting over at square one. These validators will just keep cycling through the bootstrap program every few hundred epochs, imo
Nobody addressed the 1.2x EMS issue that I raised 
Hip-19 is going to release the final 100 internal keys to external validators
In that thread I asked that the Bootstrap coordinate with Hip-19 in order to ensure those released keys go to unelected validators and arenât just taken by already elected, multi-key validators. There hasnât been any feedback from the VDAO, Harmony team, or anyone at all 
Is there anything being done to ensure that when the 100 internal slots convert to external, that they wonât almost entirely go to existing multi-key validators?
Is there an effort to prevent/discourage the bidding on these keys by already elected validators, in order to allow unelected validators to grab those keys?
Could the @HarmonyValidatorDAO organize a coordinated message through the validator ranks? Both amongst elected validators to prevent excess bidding, and also unelected validators to make sure theyâre prepared to sign
Could the Bootstrap Initiative time its implementation to coincide with the 100 key release, to further ensure this results in a significant net gain in elected validators?
What other methods could we adopt to use this opportunity to grow Harmonyâs ranks and further increase decentralization?
Tranquil says they want to further improve Harmonyâs decentralization, but their methods have had the opposite affect. Their program actually took millions of ONE away from small validators and redistributed it to multi-key validators
Have they acknowledged the centralization issue? Have they provided insight into how they plan to help decentralize Harmony in the future? Maybe they really will help improve decentralization, but itâs very much a âbelieve it when I see itâ situation for me
1 Like
The main developer for Tranquil admitted that he wanted to run their own validators for this, but his devs refused to allow it because they are advocates of decentralization so they chose to work with select trusted validators for now, and said that they are definitely keeping decentralization in mind and will come up with ways to help us with that. Iâm sure thatâs probably going to take some thinking and time to develop their project towards accomplishing that. Since he was so honest and upfront with us about that, I believe that we can trust them to do the right thing. The way that it is working now, I agree that it is not ideal and hurting things, but I canât blame them for wanting to use only validators that they trust because they have a lot of money invested into their project and a lot riding on us validators that support them right now. They just launched on Harmony not long ago. Give them some time. I believe that they will ultimately help Harmony grow in many ways, including helping to bring up more elected validators.
1 Like
Your bootstrap concern is valid. I also consider the forced %5 after 100 epochs a big issue as well. Considering that some validators may have been elected only a few times and then fell out of the election. I should be 100 epochs with successful elections.
2 Likes
It should honestly be 0%
There should be no mandatory minimum. Thereâs no mandatory maximum that validators canât exceed. So there should be no mandatory minimum that they canât go below, either. Validators should choose what they want
Either have both a min and a max or have neither. Itâs inconsistent
But I agree with you that we should not be penalizing a validator who was elected once, but then was unelected for the vast majority of the next 100 epochs. How does that follow the true intent of the rule?
1 Like
Iâm glad to know theyâve said that. And I hope they do help decentralize Harmonyâs validator ecosystem. I just want to see it first
1 Like
Hello guys,
I think this is a great proposal. I would like to build a validator node, but actually the cost is too high.
Is there any chance this proposal advance and reach a validation?
Thanks