# Discontinuation or Minimization of Invulnerable Collators on System ChainsPlaza/AssetHub/PolkadotHub **URL:** \ **Category:** Tech Talk\ **Tags:** validators, governance\ **Created:** [January 22, 2025, 1:44am UTC](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/discontinuation-or-minimization-of-invulnerable-collators-on-system-chainsplaza-assethub-polkadothub/11502 "2025-01-22T01:44:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 6
**Author:** ![SAXEMBERG](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.polkadot.network/saxemberg/32/4013_2.png) [@SAXEMBERG](https://forum.polkadot.network/u/SAXEMBERG)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2025, 2:41pm UTC](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/discontinuation-or-minimization-of-invulnerable-collators-on-system-chainsplaza-assethub-polkadothub/11502/6 "2025-01-22T14:41:41Z")
> [@tom.stakeplus](#): > > Unless we want to increase txn fees on these chains it’s likely there will never be any revenue without payments from governance or inflation. Thank you for the comment, as a matter of fact these are some of the solutions that we believe could be implemented and used for a transition into an invulnerable free set. Transaction increase and progressive reduction depending on future activity (if needed). Yet still with accessible fees at the very beginning. Due to Polkadot architecture these fees could be low for the user but much higher than current ones at the collator level. > [@tunkas](#): > > I fail to understand the reasoning behind your wish to see the _‘change to a completely permissionless or at least a permissionless maximized approach to collators’_? I am not against such approach if there is merit to it, so I am interested to hear the reasoning behind it. Polkadot is meant to be as permissionless as possible. Imagine for a moment that AssetHub after Plaza gets significant transactionality and fees. The current collation system is less than ideal for permissionlessness. And if that were to happen a more violent and confrontational update is likely to happen so it’s better to lay down the basics for such transition if it ever were to happen. > [@CoinStudio](#): > > there’s little chance for these chains to become self-sustaining. This is what we want to hopefully change. > [@CoinStudio](#): > > To provide a clear vision, the cost of operating an entire single Kusama system chain collator set is approximately **$3,600 per month** , while the cost for a Polkadot system chain collator set is closer to **$4,000 per month**. We operate validators on Polkadot so we are aware of costs. Polkadot should always remain the main objective for stability and whatever the chain needs, the treasury should be able to provide. As for Kusama, we already hold the view that [it needs to take it’s own path](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/make-kusama-chaotic-again/11123) as being the eternal livenet didn’t pan out as well and these Kusama operation costs are far above the current and future interest (if it remains on the same path). So if it were up to us, we’d just attempt to migrate progressively to a fully permissionless collator set for Kusama AssetHub right now prior to Plaza, even if the upgrade plan doesn’t pan out. A progressive approach should eliminate these withholding attack risks and frankly, could make staking on Kusama interesting again. > [@joepetrowski](#): > > W/r/t specifically removing Invulnerables, they are there to ensure that someone is always available to collate the chain. Likewise, the bond-acquired slots are there to ensure that anyone _can_ collate the chain if they want to (they may have many reasons to want to, I’m not to judge). Aren’t we already at a point where on some system chains like AssetHub we have already more interested parties willing to collate in anticipation of Plaza thus the requirement of invulnerables for such anticipated chains becoming less important? --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/discontinuation-or-minimization-of-invulnerable-collators-on-system-chainsplaza-assethub-polkadothub/11502)._