Hey : ),
Thank you for such a detailed, thoughtful, and well-grounded response — it’s clear you’ve put a lot of real-world experience and consideration into this, and we truly appreciate it.
On your three initial questions:
-
For the first wave, we’re leaning toward an equal STRK allocation across eligible validators, with a total pool likely around ~25% of the overall delegated amount. The approach for future waves is still under discussion, and we’d love to hear ideas.
-
There’s no predefined cap on validator count at this stage — the design is intentionally flexible, and we’re open to evolving it as the program matures.
-
No — our KYC/KYB process should not allow individual or entity to register multiple validators for the delegation program
On validator incentives and market dynamics:
We really appreciate your breakdown of the two validator “audiences” — it’s a helpful framing. Our intent is to run an ongoing, adaptable program — not a one-time campaign — and to continue onboarding new validators over time. We completely agree that long-term sustainability is key.
On decentralization and identity limits:
You’re absolutely right: creating multiple validators under a single entity doesn’t contribute meaningfully to decentralization. The KYC process should help with that.
On broader ecosystem efforts:
AlignedStake is a great concept, and we’re excited to see other community-driven solutions aimed at improving stake distribution.
Thanks again for the time, care, and depth you brought to this conversation.