Proposal: Setting a 5% Minimum Validator Commission Fee for Polkadot
With the enactment of the governance proposal to reduce Polkadot's inflation rate to 120 million DOT per year and the recent increase in the validator set size from 297 to 500, we believe we should consider setting a minimum validator commission fee for Polkadot. This proposal aims to ensure the sustainability of smaller validator operators, maintain decentralization, and meet the growing hardware and operational requirements as Polkadot scales.
Motivation
Validator profitability has been significantly impacted by:
The average validator currently earns significantly less than a year ago, while the costs of running a validator are increasing due to:
Higher hardware standards:
Database size:
Polkadot blockchain expands by over 500 MB daily, with a pruned database exceeding 500 GB (StakeWorld Database Size Analysis). This limits the capacity to run multiple validators on a single machine, with most hosting providers limiting storage capacity to mirrored 1tb NVME’s.
Revenue Decline:
A year ago, 1% commission earned ~13.8 DOT per era.
Currently, 1% commission earns ~6 DOT per era—a 56% reduction.
At the average commission rate of 3.6% (excluding private 100% commission validators), a validator earns 21.6 DOT per era ($125.28 at $5.8/DOT) compared to 49.68 DOT per era ($288.14) previously.
These dynamics create unsustainable conditions for smaller operators, discouraging new entrants and increasing reliance on large staking providers.
Proposal
Introduce a Minimum Commission Fee of 5% for Polkadot Validators.
This aligns with Kusama’s existing practice, ensuring validator operators can cover operational expenses and reinvest in hardware and infrastructure while preserving network decentralization.
Benefits of a Minimum Commission Fee
Decentralization:
Economic Sustainability:
Parity with Kusama:
Security and Performance:
Proposal: 5% Minimum Validator Commission Fee for Polkadot
Threshold
Hi @🌐 decentraDOT.com 🌐 ,
I fully agree with all the facts you've mentioned in the proposal and how being an independent validator becomes really challenging in the current market environment and spec requirement.
It's also a chicken-egg problem because in order to attract nominations, you need to have attractive fees, however it's nearly impossible to survive with low fees (<3% let's say) unless you have deep pockets.
Having said that, I'm not sure that setting a minimum fee is the solution. I think that the big elephant in the room that many prefer not to talk about is DOT price. If it was 3-4x from the current levels I believe this proposal wouldn't be proposed at all. Therefore, I believe the solution should come naturally from DOT price which hopefully return in the future to the place it belongs to.
We can still set a minimum fee, and when the price recovers we can reduce the threshold - it's a possibility. But again, I think that once DOT will recover, everything will be ok so we should let the market do its thing and less interfere.