Chainflow plans to vote “Abstain” for Solana SIMD-0096 Reward 100% of priority fee to validator
We plan to abstain because we feel that voting for a proposal that directly impacts validator economics, within a governance process that only allows validators to vote directly, may create a conflict of interest. To avoid any such perception and likely set a precedent for future voting, we are planning to consciously abstain from this vote.
However, in an attempt to provide delegators, both current and prospective, a voice in the process, we will note vote until Epoch 619 at the earliest. The current vote process does not allow a validator to change its vote once cast, which is why we are choosing to delay our vote, working within the confines of the existing governance process.
If you are a current or prospective delegator and would like to provide feedback on our decision before Epoch 619 begins (approximately 2 days from the time of this post), please do by replying directly to this post.
Additional context -
The active discussions on Solana SIMD-0096 that this governance vote sparked feels like a hopeful evolution of the network’s governance process. As a reminder, the first governance vote, held this past October, determined which stakeholders have the power to vote.
Chainflow voted for the option that would have allowed validators, delegators and other stakeholders to vote.
Ultimately the “validators only” vote prevailed. And now the SIMD-0096 vote may expose a limitation in a governance system where only validators can vote. For example, some stakeholders may perceive validators as voting to enrich themselves at the expense of the broader community and feel powerless without the ability to directly vote and influence the outcome.
But remember, even if you’re a delegator without direct voting power, you can still exercise indirect decision-making power by delegating to a validator or validators whose voting decisions you align with. The way the current voting system works is that a validator can’t change their vote once it’s cast. Over time, hopefully the process evolves to allow a validator to change their vote within a specified time period.
In the meantime, delegators should make their opinions known to the validators they delegate to early in the process, so that the validators can consider the information expressed in these options into their vote decision-making framework.