Kleros Founder Proposes 10% Validator Redirect for Ethereum

Clément Lesaege, founder of Kleros and Proof of Humanity, published a proposal on June 21, 2026 to add a protocol-level redirect that would allow validators to divert up to 10% of their Ethereum staking rewards to fund shared infrastructure.

Under the plan, validators would set which organizations receive redirected funds and the percentage taken, with a maximum cap of 10%. The mechanism would activate only if a majority of validators vote to implement it; if the vote passes, the redirect rate would be enforced across all validators on the network.

Validators would keep the ability to choose recipients and change allocations at any time within the 10% limit. Proponents say the measure would create a steady revenue stream for projects that operate and maintain joint infrastructure used by the Ethereum network.

Lesaege framed the proposal as a response to what he called the “free rider problem.” He wrote: “Successfully coordinating shared investment is essential to compete with both traditional economic systems that use coercive measures like taxation to reduce their deadweight loss and corporations that reinvest earnings back into future growth.”

The proposal text notes governance risks, including the possibility that validators could form cartels, raise the redirect rate, or route funds to organizations they control. The documents raise questions about how to prevent capture if the mechanism is adopted.

Reaction in the Ethereum community included criticism on social media, with some users calling the plan a tax and warning it could centralize control over funds. Romano of Via Network wrote on social media: “So paying taxes now? After the ethereum foundation kept dumping their own ethereum. What came out of this ecosystem anyway and was it all worth it?”

Until now, funding for common Ethereum resources and development has come primarily from the Ethereum Foundation, third parties and grants. Lesaege’s proposal would move the decision to fund shared resources into validator hands and embed the mechanism at the protocol level, making future allocations subject to validator consensus rather than external donors.

The proposal requires a majority of validators to pass. Debate within the community is ongoing as stakeholders assess the proposal’s potential effects on validator incentives, infrastructure funding and governance.