# Namada Validator cPGF 1-Year Subsidy - 0.67% inflation

**URL:** <https://forum.namada.net/t/namada-validator-cpgf-1-year-subsidy-0-67-inflation/1819>\
**Category:** Proposal 🗳️\
**Created:** [25 July 2025 19:33 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/namada-validator-cpgf-1-year-subsidy-0-67-inflation/1819 "2025-07-25T19:33:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![maxpower-01](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.namada.net/maxpower-01/32/672_2.png) [@maxpower-01](https://forum.namada.net/u/maxpower-01)\
**Post date:** [15 December 2025 10:56 UTC](https://forum.namada.net/t/namada-validator-cpgf-1-year-subsidy-0-67-inflation/1819/5 "2025-12-15T10:56:39Z")

</div>

I think you are mixing several topics, so let me clarify.

This post is purely about the cPGF validator subsidy. It is not about relayers, RPCs, indexers, UIs, testnets, or other ecosystem contributions, etc. Maybe you are referring to this thread: [RetroPGF for Service Providers - Funding Operations - Namada](https://forum.namada.net/t/retropgf-for-service-providers/1858)

Regarding governance, you mention it is “very challenging” due to tooling (e.g., Keplr). Could you clarify what exactly prevents validators from voting? Maybe create a new thread for it.

This is not a new proposal; it’s an idea to iterate on the existing cPGF model, including active participation, uptime, and real operating costs, and to ensure that subsidies do not reward inactive or jailed validators.

If you disagree with specific thresholds (uptime, voting %, etc.), let’s discuss those directly.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.namada.net/t/namada-validator-cpgf-1-year-subsidy-0-67-inflation/1819)._