# Reduce Elected Validator set from 110 to 55

**URL:** https://forum.celo.org/t/reduce-elected-validator-set-from-110-to-55/12732
**Category:** Governance
**Tags:** validators
**Created:** [December 5, 2025, 6:15pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/reduce-elected-validator-set-from-110-to-55/12732 "2025-12-05T18:15:09Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![ThirdEyeDelegate](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.celo.org/thirdeyedelegate/32/10107_2.png) [@ThirdEyeDelegate](https://forum.celo.org/u/ThirdEyeDelegate)
#### Post date: [December 7, 2025, 11:09pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/reduce-elected-validator-set-from-110-to-55/12732/3 "2025-12-07T23:09:21Z")

</div>

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:

> [@Reduce Elected Validator Count to 45 - DRAFT](https://forum.celo.org/t/reduce-elected-validator-count-to-45-draft/12566/7):
>
> still trying to understand the real purpose of that “CeloPG Validator Analysis”. If its a kind of personal biased subjective assessment, then it feels quite disappointing and lacks clear understanding/context.

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:

> [@Reduce Elected Validator Count to 45 - DRAFT](https://forum.celo.org/t/reduce-elected-validator-count-to-45-draft/12566/16):
>
> _If we were to move forward with the direction outlined in this draft proposal_, I’d suggest that **every validator group be limited to a single validator**.

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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.celo.org/t/reduce-elected-validator-set-from-110-to-55/12732)._