Currently, once a chain launch with this ICS implementation, it will inherit the current validator set of the provider chain.
Given validators updates are fully discarded and provider validator change are not communicated via consensus to the consumer chains, it is possible that the consumer validator set in x/staking diverge from the actual validator set.
To solve this, we first need to decide how we want the system to behave:
-
Keeping consumer validator set in sync with provider chain
- Possibly via a custom module like x/interchainsecurity sharing validator updates via IBC.
-
Have consumer validator set fully independent from the provider chain
- This method could allow different kind of governance, where provider chain validators do not need to actively participate in the consumer chain governance.
Currently, once a chain launch with this ICS implementation, it will inherit the current validator set of the provider chain.
Given validators updates are fully discarded and provider validator change are not communicated via consensus to the consumer chains, it is possible that the consumer validator set in x/staking diverge from the actual validator set.
To solve this, we first need to decide how we want the system to behave:
Keeping consumer validator set in sync with provider chain
Have consumer validator set fully independent from the provider chain