The Interchain Foundation (ICF) has introduced a redesigned ATOM delegation program built around objective, on-chain criteria and a quarterly adjustment process. The program aims to increase governance participation, strengthen validator performance, reduce operational overhead, and align delegations with measurable contributions to the Cosmos Hub.

The ICF is the steward of the Cosmos Hub and maintains the Cosmos Stack, which today powers ecosystems including Progmat, Ondo Finance, Figure Markets, Stable, Crypto.com and more. ICF’s ATOM delegations materially influence validator incentives, governance participation, and network resilience on the Cosmos Hub. Because these delegations represent a significant concentration of stake, their allocation affects validator set composition, quorum reliability, and decentralization.

As a result, the methodology used to determine eligibility must be objective, transparent, and repeatable, ensuring that delegated stake supports validators who contribute to network stability and long-term ecosystem growth.

Range partnered with the ICF to support the transition to its new delegation program by indexing and collecting relevant on-chain data, computing eligibility metrics across defined snapshot windows, and performing compliance screening of validator-associated addresses. The methodology described below was implemented to ensure that validator selection under the Default Delegation Tranche can be executed deterministically and repeated quarterly with minimal manual intervention.

All metrics were derived directly from Cosmos Hub on-chain state using transparent evaluation windows:

• Governance participation window: February 18, 2021 - December 31, 2025

• 90-day operational window: October 3, 2025 - December 31, 2025

The resulting framework separates validator evaluation into measurable components - exposure screening, governance participation and operational performance - each computed using reproducible logic. This structure enables the ICF to re-run the process quarterly, automatically adjust delegations as validators qualify or fall out of eligibility, and maintain alignment between stake allocation and network health.

In total, 13.5 million ATOMs are set to be delegated to 74 validators this quarter. In addition to the Default Delegation Tranche, for which Range produced the evaluation metrics, the ICF’s ATOM delegation program also has an Ecosystem Growth Delegation Tranche. That tranche is designed to advance key ecosystem initiatives and support critical infrastructure, and is assessed in a flexible manner, not necessarily tied to onchain metrics. Learn more about it here.

The sections below describe how each component for the ICF’s Default Delegation Tranche was calculated and applied.

Address Scope

As of December 31, 2025, the Cosmos Hub had 200 bonded validators, of which 180 comprised the Active Set. The Active Set is responsible for block production and consensus participation, while bonded validators outside the Active Set remain eligible to enter consensus based on stake ranking.

All 200 bonded validators were included in the evaluation.

For exposure analysis, we evaluated validator-associated account and withdrawal addresses derived directly from the staking state. Where a validator used the same address for both roles, it was counted once. Where a distinct withdrawal address was configured, both addresses were analyzed independently. This distinction is important because withdrawal addresses may interact differently within the ecosystem and can introduce separate transactional exposure surfaces.

This process resulted in 239 unique root addresses across the 200 validators. Each root address was treated as an independent starting point for exposure screening.

Governance and operational metrics were evaluated at the validator operator (valoper) level, ensuring that participation, uptime, commission, and slashing events were assessed consistently across the validator set.

Exposure Screening

Exposure screening was conducted using a multi-hop transaction connectivity analysis applied to validator-associated addresses. The objective was not to attribute wrongdoing, but to measure transactional proximity to malicious-labeled infrastructure and sanctioned entities within a defined analytical budget.

In an increasingly interchain environment, validator-associated addresses may interact with counterparties across multiple networks. While indirect connectivity does not imply misconduct, repeated proximity to malicious infrastructure or sanctioned entities can represent operational, reputational, or compliance risk. For an institutional delegation program, screening for such exposure supports ecosystem credibility and ensures that delegated stake is not indirectly connected to high-risk activity.

As part of this process, validator-associated addresses were screened against multiple sanctions and compliance lists using Range’s Risk API infrastructure. This includes checks against OFAC sanctions lists, UK and EU sanctions regimes, and other regional and international blocklists, as well as proprietary attribution datasets covering phishing, exploit-related, and other malicious activity.

The exposure analysis was performed across 239 validator-associated root addresses derived from account and withdraw addresses.

The evaluation focused on:

• Minimum hop distance to malicious-labeled addresses

• Number of distinct malicious-labeled addresses reachable within three hops

In the sections below, we describe how these signals were computed.

Multi-Hop Connectivity

Our exposure analysis was conducted using a breadth-first multi-hop traversal over observed transfer counterparties. The traversal included intra-chain transfers on Cosmos Hub and supported cross-chain transfer surfaces, with a fixed hop budget of three.

For each root address, traversal proceeded hop by hop with a fixed hop budget of three:

• Hop 0 represents the root address itself. 

• Hop 1 represents direct transfer counterparties. 

• Hop 2 and hop 3 represent successive layers of counterparties discovered from prior hops.

At each discovery step, counterparties were annotated using Range attribution intelligence. Attribution fields include entity classification, category, network, malicious labeling, and sanctions screening results derived from our Risk API.

To control path expansion and preserve signal quality, pruning rules were applied during traversal. Highly connected infrastructure - exchanges, routers, module accounts - can dominate traversal paths and distort signal quality. 

To maintain analytical precision, we pruned Cosmos module accounts, addresses labeled as benign infrastructure and addresses exceeding a predefined degree threshold. This pruning ensured exposure signals reflect meaningful connectivity rather than general ecosystem liquidity flows.

Risk Indicators

We used two transparent indicators to evaluate exposure:

• Minimum hop distance to any malicious-labeled address

• Number of distinct malicious-labeled addresses reachable within three hops

These indicators were summarized using a simplified scoring rubric to support triage and reporting. The scoring does not treat exposure as proof of misconduct; rather, it provides a structured way to prioritize review when transactional proximity to sanctioned or malicious infrastructure is detected.

In this batch, no validator-associated root address was directly malicious-labeled, no hop-1 direct malicious counterparties were observed, and no validator-associated addresses were directly listed on OFAC, UK, or EU sanctions lists within the three-hop budget. All exposure signals were limited to indirect two- or three-hop connectivity.

Governance Participation

Governance participation was evaluated across the full governance window from February 18, 2021 to December 31, 2025. This window captures the entirety of Cosmos Hub governance activity since launch, ensuring that validator participation is assessed over a long-term horizon rather than a short-term snapshot.

For the Cosmos Hub, governance participation is central to decentralization, quorum reliability, and credible network decision-making. Validators are not only infrastructure providers but also, by default, voting representatives for delegators. Low participation can delay proposals, weaken quorum reliability, and concentrate decision-making power among a smaller subset of active voters. For this reason, governance engagement is a core eligibility criterion in the ICF delegation program.

The thresholds the Interchain Foundation were looking for:

• Governance participation greater than 80%

• If more than 20% of a validator’s votes were ABSTAIN, the delegation amount would be reduced by 50%

In the sections below, we discuss how these metrics were calculated.

Governance Participation Rate

Governance engagement is central to validator responsibility. However, raw vote counts do not tell the full story. A validator cannot vote on a proposal if it was not in the Cosmos Hub’s Active Set at the time of the proposal’s voting period.

We therefore calculated governance participation solely on the basis of voting eligibility.

For every governance proposal in the evaluation window:

• We determined whether the validator was in the active set during the proposal’s voting period.

• If the validator was active, the proposal was counted as eligible.

• If the validator was not active, the proposal was excluded from participation calculations.

Participation rate was then computed as: votes_cast / eligible_proposals. This ensured that validators are not penalized for periods where they had no voting rights. 

If a validator submitted multiple votes on the same proposal, only the final vote recorded within the voting period was counted.

Votes were extracted by traversing all governance transactions. Since our evaluation window spans multiple network upgrades, to ensure complete coverage across governance module versions, we decoded the following message types:

• /cosmos.gov.v1beta1.MsgVote

• /cosmos.gov.v1.MsgVote

• /cosmos.gov.v1beta1.MsgVoteWeighted

• /cosmos.gov.v1.MsgVoteWeighted

76 of the 200 validators met the 80% participation threshold, demonstrating consistent engagement in Hub governance over the evaluation window.

Abstain Share

Abstain share was calculated as abstain_votes / total_votes_cast.

For weighted votes, fractional weights were not accumulated. Each vote option present in a weighted vote increments its corresponding option counter by one. As a result, total vote option counts may exceed the number of proposals voted on.

Abstain votes are a legitimate governance tool, but sustained high abstain rates can reduce the signaling value of validator participation. The 20% threshold is designed to encourage meaningful engagement while preserving validator discretion.

139 of the evaluated validators met the abstain threshold and were therefore not subject to delegation reduction under the ICF framework.

Note that the abstain share was used as a delegation adjustment metric rather than an absolute exclusion criterion.

Operational Metrics

Operational metrics were evaluated over a 90-day window from October 3 to December 31, 2025. This window was selected to assess recent validator performance and operational reliability within a meaningful timeframe that is not overly narrow.

In a Proof-of-Stake network such as the Cosmos Hub, validator operations directly affect network stability, the continuity of block production, and delegator outcomes. Commission, uptime, Active-Set stability, and slashing events provide measurable signals of validator infrastructure quality and operational discipline - and these were the metrics that we reported on for the Interchain Foundation.

Together, these operational metrics provide a structured view of validator reliability, economic alignment with delegators, and contribution to network stability. They complement governance participation and exposure analysis by measuring how validators perform in their core role: securing and maintaining the Cosmos Hub.

The thresholds the Interchain Foundation was looking for:

• Commission no greater than 10%

• 90-day rolling uptime greater than 95%

• Validator must have been running for 90 days

• No downtime slashes in the last 90 days

In the sections below, we discuss how we calculated these metrics.

Commission Rate

Commission was obtained from staking state as a snapshot at the end of the evaluation window. The value reflects the validator’s configured commission rate on December 31, 2025 and does not represent a historical average.

 Commission levels are relevant for the ATOM community because they affect delegator returns and potentially influence stake distribution across the Active Set. While excessive commissions may reduce a validator’s competitiveness, unsustainably low commissions can lead to stake and voting power being centralized. 

156 of the validators analyzed had a commission rate of 10% or lower, a reasonably sustainable rate that also promotes healthy decentralization by encouraging delegations based on factors beyond commission rates alone.

Uptime

On Cosmos Hub, consistent signing behavior contributes directly to network liveness and security. Validators in the Active Set (the top 180 bonded validators) are expected to participate in block production. 

Our uptime metrics were derived from block commit signatures recorded on-chain (for the next round of delegations, NIL pre-commits will be included too). For each block in the evaluation window, we determined whether the validator signed the block. Uptime was calculated as the number of signed blocks divided by the total number of blocks over our evaluation period: between block heights 27,793,132 – 29,114,836 (Oct 3–Dec 31, 2025). 

Of the 200 validators we analyzed, 162 had a 90-day rolling uptime greater than 95%.

Validators outside the Active Set may not appear as signers; absence of signer records in such cases reflects lack of consensus participation rather than downtime. Validators created mid-window, or those moving in and out of the Active Set due to stake changes, may exhibit lower aggregate signing percentages. These structural dynamics were taken into account when interpreting the results.

Node History

Node history was evaluated to ensure that validators receiving delegations have demonstrated a minimum period of operational presence prior to the evaluation date. For the Cosmos Hub, validator longevity contributes to network stability, infrastructure maturity, and reduced volatility in stake distribution.

Newly created validators may not yet have established operational track records, governance behavior, or infrastructure resilience. For a quarterly delegation program, incorporating a minimum operating history helps ensure that delegated stake is allocated to validators with demonstrated continuity rather than short-term entrants.

The Interchain Foundation’s criterion required that a validator must have been operating a node for at least 90 days prior to the end of the evaluation period (December 31, 2025).

In our analysis, 162 validators met this requirement.

Downtime Slashing

Downtime slashes were identified directly from on-chain slashing module events during the evaluation window. The metric counts downtime-related slashing events attributed to each validator. 

Slashing events are particularly relevant in the Cosmos Hub context because they reflect concrete operational failures that impact both delegators and network integrity. Even isolated downtime slashes can signal infrastructure weaknesses or insufficient redundancy.

158 of the 200 validators analyzed had no downtime slashes during our analysis window.

Scaling delegation programs with on-chain intelligence

The Interchain Foundation’s updated delegation program prioritizes automation, objectivity, and strategic alignment with the long-term health of the Cosmos Hub. The methodology implemented here was designed specifically to support that objective. All metrics are derived from on-chain state, calculated within fixed snapshot windows, and structured so they can be re-run quarterly with minimal manual intervention.

Operational metrics measure validator reliability and infrastructure discipline. Governance participation is assessed relative to eligibility, reinforcing quorum reliability and meaningful engagement. Exposure screening incorporates sanctions and malicious-activity checks across multiple jurisdictions and networks, providing additional safeguards as the interchain environment becomes more complex.

This separation of components allows delegations to evolve predictably as validator behavior changes, while maintaining institutional-grade transparency. As ecosystems mature, validator evaluation increasingly requires cross-chain transaction analysis, multi-jurisdictional sanctions screening, and governance analytics at scale. Range’s Risk API and intelligence infrastructure are built to support these requirements across networks and delegation programs.

See the full announcement from the Interchain Foundation about their new ATOM delegation program here.

For blockchain foundations, ecosystem funds, and protocol stewards designing automated delegation frameworks, get in touch to discuss how we can help you implement structured and compliance-aware validator assessments.