CIP-0120: Traffic-Based Validator Rewards and Confirming Validator Incentives

1. #1Amanda Martin03-08-2026source ↗

   Hello Super Validator Node Owners,

   Please find ready for vote: CIP-0120: Traffic-Based Validator Rewards and Confirming Validator Incentives

   • The CIP text as merged in GitHub at the Proposed state
     1838cc0cc4d908ed2d6c912636c956b93273e66e

   No changes will be made to the CIP text after this announcement other than updating the approval date and status.

   Sponsors / Endorsers

   • MPCH – SV Sponsor

   • 5N – SV Endorser

   Voting Instructions
   All other operators, please reply with:

   <SV Name> votes <in favor | not in favor>
   

   If you believe any change made after this announcement is substantive, please vote not in favor and include your reasoning in the vote response.
   

2. #2Eric Saraniecki03-08-2026source ↗
   hi all - DA isn't actually ready to vote on this topic yet 

   
   

   you're of course welcome to do so without us but we wanted to put out the idea for preliminary feedback and examination

   
   

   
   

   
   

   On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 12:08 PM Amanda Martin via lists.sync.global <amanda=canton.foundation@...> wrote:
   

   Hello Super Validator Node Owners,

   Please find ready for vote: CIP-0120: Traffic-Based Validator Rewards and Confirming Validator Incentives

   • The CIP text as merged in GitHub at the Proposed state
     1838cc0cc4d908ed2d6c912636c956b93273e66e

   No changes will be made to the CIP text after this announcement other than updating the approval date and status.

   Sponsors / Endorsers

   • MPCH – SV Sponsor

   • 5N – SV Endorser

   Voting Instructions
   All other operators, please reply with:

   <SV Name> votes <in favor | not in favor>
   

   If you believe any change made after this announcement is substantive, please vote not in favor and include your reasoning in the vote response.
   

   
   This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.
3. #3Chris Zuehlke03-08-2026source ↗
   Cumberland votes not in favor at the moment. 

    

   While we are open to considering some of the ideas presented in the CIP, we think it represents some significant changes that merit additional discussion.

    

   We'll share additional feedback in the discuss thread, one point we want to raise here is that its not clear that allocating validator rewards to this mechanism accomplishes all the sated goals of the CIP.  Namely, multi-party confirmations do not necessarily equate to independence of involved validators.  Rather, its possible that the majority of the use cases for this change would be the same party deploying across multiple validators--which has some benefit of infrastructure resiliency--but we'd like to discuss potential corner cases with that use case. 

    

   Thanks

   Chris
4. #4Chris Matturri04-08-2026source ↗
   Directionally we like the concept of this CIP and incentivizing decentralization of validators hosting different applications on the network- but agree with DA & Cumberland that it is premature to take this to a vote.  

   
   

   Formally Proof Group votes no to this for now.