NEAR Governance Controversy: Chorus One’s Protest Sparks Debate Over Validator Power

In a move that has shaken the NEAR community, staking provider Chorus One has openly protested what it calls a breakdown in the network’s governance process. The company’s decision to refuse a software upgrade following a failed inflation proposal has sparked widespread debate across the ecosystem, exposing fragility in how decentralization and validator power truly operate within NEAR. The unfolding NEAR governance controversy has quickly become one of the most significant governance flashpoints in the proof‑of‑stake world this year.

The proposal that started it all

The roots of the conflict go back to a proposal introduced through NEAR’s new governance framework, the House of Stake. The proposal aimed to cut network inflation by 50%, effectively reducing the base staking reward from 5% to 2.5%. Proponents believed the move would make NEAR’s tokenomics more sustainable over the long term, limiting inflationary pressure while improving token value.

However, Chorus One, one of the largest validator operators, opposed the idea. The company argued that NEAR’s ecosystem was still too young to withstand such an aggressive reduction in staking rewards. It warned that lowering yields would push smaller validators out of business, consolidating power among the larger operators, a dynamic that runs counter to NEAR’s decentralization goals.

When the proposal went to a vote, the validator community was split. While the vote did not achieve the required participation threshold, meaning the proposal technically failed, the NEAR core team decided to proceed with implementing the reduction in the next software upgrade. For many, this decision blurred the line between governance consensus and unilateral control.

Chorus One pushes back

In a public statement shared on X (formerly Twitter), Chorus One voiced “serious concerns” over the decision, describing it as a threat to NEAR’s integrity. “This sets a dangerous precedent,” the company wrote, “that core developers can override community votes if enough validators don’t engage.”

Chorus One then took a rare and deliberate stand: it refused to upgrade its validator client. The company urged other validators to do the same as a form of protest. Although Chorus One emphasized that its opposition wasn’t about the inflation reduction itself, it argued that circumventing on‑chain governance undermines the trust built between validators and developers.

The protocol enforces the upgrade

However, NEAR’s enforcement mechanism left little room for defiance. The network’s upgrade system automatically activates new versions once 80% of total stake has upgraded. When the threshold was reached, the inflation change was implemented, and validators who refused to upgrade, including Chorus One, were temporarily removed from the active set.

This meant those validators stopped producing blocks and earning rewards until they rejoined by upgrading. In essence, the protocol’s design ensured continuity but also demonstrated that dissenting validators could be quickly sidelined if they went against the majority.

What the NEAR governance controversy reveals

The NEAR governance controversy highlights a crucial tension within proof‑of‑stake systems: how to balance efficient decision‑making with true decentralization. On paper, NEAR’s system protects against stagnation and malicious actors who might block consensus by refusing to upgrade. In practice, though, it reduces the real power of minority validators to challenge decisions, even legitimate ones.

Chorus One’s protest exposed that validators have limited practical influence once a majority upgrade decision has been made. Their refusal did not stall the network but rather revealed how network governance can favor majority control over deliberative discussion.

This also offered an unintended demonstration of the centralization risks Chorus One originally warned about. By halving staking rewards, smaller validators face more economic pressure, and with the network’s supermajority rule, dissenting nodes may find it harder to stand their ground against bigger players.

A pivotal moment for validator governance

Whether one sides with NEAR’s core team or with Chorus One, the conflict has forced an industry‑wide conversation about governance accountability. Should technical upgrades proceed when a formal vote fails? And if validators cannot block such moves, does decentralization merely become symbolic?

For NEAR, the event could become a turning point, prompting discussions on reforming voting thresholds, validator participation incentives, and the role of development teams in enforcing changes.

What are your thoughts on the NEAR governance controversy? Tweet us at @CryptojistHQ.