Referendum #51 · whitelisted caller · fact-checked

Rejected first attempt to add one validator slot

Original title: [Whitelisted Caller] Referendum #51: +1 active validator slot

Governance: Rejected · Not executed

Submitted 2025-04-27T04:07:03.000Z · 2025-05-11T06:03:27.000Z

Verification date in this record: 2026-10-14. This is not a live chain status check.

What this referendum means

What was proposed?

This proposal would have added one active-validator slot, but it was rejected before the identical call passed as referendum #52.

Why it mattered

The pair shows the same validator-capacity change failing one vote and succeeding on resubmission.

An Aye vote meant…

An Aye vote supported adding one validator slot.

A Nay vote meant…

A Nay vote opposed the increase through this referendum.

What happened or is happening

The proposal hash and decoded call match #52 exactly: staking.increaseValidatorCount with additional=1.

The referendum was rejected and did not execute. #52 reused the same proposal hash and increased the count from 58 to 59.

If approved, increase Staking.ValidatorCount by one.

No additional off-chain action is treated as verified unless explicitly stated.

Observable on-chain result

The referendum was rejected and did not execute. #52 reused the same proposal hash and increased the count from 58 to 59.

Promised outcomes

Add one active-validator slot if approved.

Verified outcomes

The referendum was rejected.
Identical #52 later changed ValidatorCount from 58 to 59.

Follow-up: not-applicable

Further explanation and reporting

No additional reporting has been published for this referendum.

Details and evidence

Participation

Calculation status: complete. Address-level figures are not counts of distinct people or organizations.

Individual vote rows reconcile to the aggregate capital total. Concentration treats delegated capital as controlled by the account casting the direct vote.

Direct addresses	2
Delegating addresses	0
Raw capital (VARA)	1000
Weighted Aye power (VARA)	100
Weighted Nay power (VARA)	0
Approval (%)	100
Raw capital / captured electorate (%)	0.00001
Support capital (VARA)	1000
Top-one share (%)	50
Top-three share (%)	100
HHI (0–10,000)	5000
Gini (0–1)	0

Proposal history

Referendum	Governance	Execution	Direct addresses
#49 First rejected attempt to add one validator slot This was the first rejected attempt to add one slot to Vara's configured validator count.	Rejected	Not executed	5
#50 Second rejected attempt to add one validator slot This was the second rejected attempt to add one slot to Vara's configured validator count.	Rejected	Not executed	3
#52 Increase Vara's validator count from 58 to 59 This referendum increased Vara's configured validator count by 1, from 58 to 59.	Executed	Dispatch succeeded	11

Timeline

Submitted · 2025-04-27T04:07:03.000Z · block 22013512
DecisionDepositPlaced · 2025-04-27T04:07:15.001Z · block 22013516
DecisionStarted · 2025-04-27T04:37:03.001Z · block 22014112
Rejected · 2025-05-11T06:03:27.000Z · block 22417312

Technical call tree

The proposal hash and decoded call match #52 exactly: staking.increaseValidatorCount with additional=1.

{
  "call": {
    "callIndex": "0x1503",
    "section": "whitelist",
    "method": "dispatchWhitelistedCallWithPreimage",
    "args": [
      {
        "name": "call",
        "type": "Call",
        "value": {
          "callIndex": "0x0d0a",
          "section": "staking",
          "method": "increaseValidatorCount",
          "args": [
            {
              "name": "additional",
              "type": "Compact<u32>",
              "value": 1
            }
          ]
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "nestedCalls": [
    {
      "depth": 0,
      "callIndex": "0x1503",
      "section": "whitelist",
      "method": "dispatchWhitelistedCallWithPreimage"
    },
    {
      "depth": 1,
      "callIndex": "0x0d0a",
      "section": "staking",
      "method": "increaseValidatorCount"
    }
  ],
  "limitations": []
}

Historical track parameters

{
  "maxDeciding": 100,
  "preparePeriodBlocks": 600,
  "decisionPeriodBlocks": 403200,
  "confirmationPeriodBlocks": 200,
  "minimumEnactmentBlocks": 200,
  "decisionDeposit": {
    "planck": "100000000000000000",
    "vara": "100000"
  },
  "approvalCurve": {
    "reciprocal": {
      "factor": 270899180,
      "xOffset": 389830523,
      "yOffset": 305084738
    }
  },
  "supportCurve": {
    "reciprocal": {
      "factor": 8650766,
      "xOffset": 18867926,
      "yOffset": 41509433
    }
  }
}

Deposits

Governance deposits are not proposal spending.

{
  "submission": {
    "depositor": "kGgQqLXhVVMv85XDy1v5AE6HVBG1tkAwURrdmq1ewbmGMCaGH",
    "amount": {
      "planck": "100000000000000",
      "vara": "100"
    }
  },
  "decision": {
    "depositor": "kGhAjUA3Uke6UmWwMRRwFHuxisCgm7dab61sL1tKqA15NXQVX",
    "amount": {
      "planck": "100000000000000000",
      "vara": "100000"
    }
  },
  "outcome": "unknown"
}

Sources

subsquare · retrieved 2026-10-14T00:46:33.897Z · block 22013512
Public server-rendered page data captured before editorial translation.
subsquare · retrieved 2026-10-14T00:56:36.175Z
Public final vote rows used for voter counts, conviction values, delegation aggregates, and concentration calculations.

Corrections

No corrections recorded.

Learn the terms

OpenGov · Referendum · Proposal · Preimage · Proposal hash · Runtime call