We have two concerns that We are still not sure have been fully addressed before putting forward this proposal.
1. Is this proposal driven by network wide analysis or by personal interests?
Some of the reasoning especially around how validator groups were evaluated feels unclear. If there is a shift toward selecting which validators “deserve” to remain based on subjective criteria, we should understand exactly who conducted that assessment and what methodology was used. Otherwise the community cannot distinguish between objective analysis and decisions that may benefit specific parties.
2. What is the rationale behind the “Value to Celo” score?
The scoring system referenced earlier appears highly subjective and potentially biased. As @mbarbosa noted:
Without transparent, measurable, and reproducible criteria, any ranking of validator groups risks undermining trust in the whole process. Validators contribute in different ways, and subjective judgments can create an uneven playing field.
Additionally, I agree with the concern raised by @Wade:
This point is important. If the validator set is being reduced, then allowing groups to operate multiple nodes would concentrate influence even further. A one validator per group rule would at least maintain relative fairness and decentralization within a smaller set.
Overall:
I understand the tokenomics motivation behind reducing emissions, but the method of choosing which validators remain must be transparent, objective, and community aligned. Otherwise, even a well-intentioned proposal risks appearing self serving or exclusionary.