[Resubmission of Ref 589] Kusama Inflation Parameters for Asset Hub Migration
Since we identified an error in Ref 589 (using perbill instead of perquintill for the inflation parameter, which effectively set inflation near zero), this referendum is a resubmission with the correct parameters. It pre-commits the post-Asset Hub staking inflation settings: maintaining 10% annual inflation with a 75% ideal stake, and disabling parachain slot adjustments by setting UseAuctionSlots = false.
Moreover, this reduces the maximum number of validator candidates from 4000 to 2500. This is because with the migration of the staking system to AH, the maximum number of validators that the AssetHub can handle cannot be as large of the relay chain, due to PoV constraints. Should the 2500 validator candidacy slots be filled, then validators can compete for the top 2500 slots via chill_other extrinsic, which allows anyone to forcefully chill a validator who has less than minValidatorBond of self-stake. minValidatorBond needs to be set by governance.
Why a vote if numbers don’t change?
Because the execution path changes after the Asset Hub migration. The auctions-dependent branch becomes irrelevant; without an explicit update, the chain could fall back to behavior not explicitly approved for post-AH. This proposal:
- Disables the auctions path by setting (UseAuctionSlots = false)
- Locks in the same headline numbers (10%, 75%) under the right path for AH.
- Voting now blesses the exact post-AH settings (10%, 75%), reduces ambiguity for operators/stakers, and records intent on-chain (remark).
- Reduces ambiguity by explicitly recording intent through this referendum (approval of this vote itself signals the community’s intent: post-AH, no immediate change, and revisit after migration).
Why 10% and 75% now?
We’re prioritising stability through the migration: keeping incentives familiar for validators/nominators and maintaining predictable Treasury dynamics. Changing rates today adds unnecessary risk; we’ll reassess after AH with live data (including options like alternative reward curves or gradual issuance schedules, or decreased inflation …. etc)
What exactly changes on the chain?
A batched Root call that:
- sets Inflation::UseAuctionSlots = false
- sets Inflation::MaxInflation = perquintill (100_000_000_000_000_000) (10%) & IdealStake remains 75% as is.
- sets Staking::MaxValidatorCount = 2500.
Comments (5)
Proposal Passed
Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (30)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (0)0.0 DOT
Hello @Otar/Polkadot ,
Thank you for the proposal. The rest of the configuration seems in line, but the batch call seems to be missing the
remarkcall, which is listed under "What exactly changes on chain?". Was the remark intended to be included within the batch? It would also be good to include themaxValidatorCountchange under the same section for easy reference.Best,
kukabi | Helikon
@🏔 HELIKON 🏔 Thanks for pointing this out. You’re correct that the batch does not include a remark call. That was our oversight in the call composition and original description. I’ve updated the contextual information to clarify that the approval of this referendum itself serves as the post-AH signal. I’ve also added the maxValidatorCount change explicitly under the “What exactly changes on chain?” section for easier reference.
🏛️ REEEEEEEEEE DAO
REEEEEEEEEE DAO is a decentralized collective body committed to serve Polkadot Opengov. Our mission is to provide high-quality assessments on referenda to ensure outcomes that strengthen the Polkadot ecosystem. Each referendum is reviewed carefully by our DAO members through the scope of technical, strategic, and governance.
📋 Community Feedback
💬 Open Communication Channel
For further discussion and detailed feedback, please reply to this comment.
This feedback represents the collective voice of REEEEEEEEEE DAO members participating in Polkadot governance.