100% uptime validators and the delegation program

Hello, eveyone.There are currently 260 validators with 100% uptime and 311 validators with 99.99% uptime. Obviously, in view of the introduction of the new uptime calculation system, the number of validators with a 100% uptime will be much more than slots in the delegation program (even taking into account the increase in delegations from 120 to 240). Currently, the criterion for determining who has a higher rank is the previous delegation period, which is not very fair given that the team themselves recognized the shortcomings of the sidecar method. Thus, when distributing slots for the delegation among validators with 100% uptime, I propose to delegate out of turn to validators from the Genesis Founding Members program (after passing the KYС, of course).

Hello @Sebastian_Pereira thank you for your post! More importantly welcome to Mina Research!

hey Sebastian, thanks for starting this thread. Currently I am not sure it is an issue as once the KYC checks were done (I think) there wasn’t actually 240 validators that could participate. It will def become more relevant in the coming days, so it is a great thing to talk about now.

There should be some kind of process where the situation arises there is a criteria for determining who gets preference.

Just brainstorming, but my idea would be to give each validator a score based on a number of variables I feel like there has to be healthy competition and an incentive for new people to run a node who don’t have enough tokens to probabilistically produce a block.

Amount of self staked tokens
Are they a Genesis Founding Member
Are they an active contributor to the community/project
Is there node hosted by themselves or with someone like Hetzner

Perhaps other people could give some other criteria? Would be interested to hear any thoughts.

1 Like

On this topic, Cris confirmed me that they are looking into it. They are inclined to go for a open-sourced randomization:

I guess it’s the good moment to discuss about the topic, as Cris was looking for feedback on it.

@Pete good ideas imo, but it’s a complicated topic, everyone will see this thing in it’s interest and it can bring negative vibes again. I don’t dislike randomization for that reason, it’s simple and “fair”, versus using any other criterias.

Not a solution to sybil issue though, so I think you are right to dig new ideas, but a first good step nonethless.

Let’s also make this topic known to Cris

1 Like

I’m for randomisation - the current tie-break rule is biased.
It would be good if someone could build a simple zkApp utilising a VRF for the randomisation.


Thanks for the thoughts Syd. If the consensus was to make it random then I would support that too. You are right some of the variables I mentioned could be cause more controversy than is needed.

The important thing is to reach a broad agreement on a solution before the problem arises.

1 Like

Yea that’s why randomization is a good first step. Fair, simple and consensual.

But having discussions on potential next steps is still a good thing!