Dear Validators,
For the the past 2-3 months, we’ve been observing a delicate situation that is affecting both the network and the Validator ecosystem. The reason for bringing it up publicly is twofold: firstly, we acknowledge the need for transparency, and secondly, we value the opinion of ecosystem participants highly and are committed to taking it into account.
The above-mentioned situation refers to one validator running their nodes inefficiently. Namely, their nodes have been offline for the past 3 months as we speak. They have been non-responsive to all our callouts on Discord whenever the Validator Engagement Team announces their status checks. Furthermore, they have also not responded to direct messages, nor have they provided us with an email address or any other alternative way of contact.
As a result, we are currently unable to communicate with them on any front. The unresponsiveness has become so clear that we have now paused our alerts to them that we do on a daily basis.
Below you can see the validator in question:
As part of Polygon’s responsibility towards the network and its users, it’s our goal to ensure that all validators run highly-efficient nodes to facilitate the sheer volume of transactions. Regardless of the size of their stake, each validator is crucial to ensuring the network runs smoothly.
The two inactive and highly-inefficient validators currently occupying their slots give us reason to take action. An internal discussion took place and two solutions were identified that we now present to you.
Solution 1: Auction Mechanism
The first solution would mean replacing inactive validators through the Auction Mechanism where potential validators can replace underperforming ones by staking a higher amount of MATIC tokens. As this solution is permissionless in nature and works without intervention from Polygon, it can be considered the most desirable one.
However, following our initial proposal, a lot of external and internal discussion took place on how the described mechanism can cause cartelization. The network could become centralized as Validators with (nearly-) unlimited resources can easily replace several lower-staked Validators, potentially operating 2/3 of the nodes eventually. This kind of concern shouldn’t be taken lightly and for this reason, a hasty implementation of the Auction Mechanism isn’t an ideal solution to this problem.
At the same time, we’ve been delegating resources to research on multiple fronts, which can be expected to lead to the enabling of an Auction Mechanism through a more sophisticated manner, eliminating or highly limiting the risk of cartelization as a result. This requires time and can’t be rushed as the lasting security of the network is our utmost priority.
Solution 2: Eviction by multi-sig
Polygon’s stakeManager contracts that have been deployed on Ethereum have a function called forceUnstake where if initiated, it will kick a validator off the network with their stake unbonded and their slot made empty.
For reference, here the is the contract: https://etherscan.io/address/0x5e3Ef299fDDf15eAa0432E6e66473ace8c13D908#writeProxyContract
Please note that any action taken on the stakeManager contract is a multi-sig event. There is a minimum of 8 signatures collected to ensure the transaction is successfully processed. The signatories are Polygon, Quickswap, Curve, Horizon Games, and Cometh. More information on the multi-sig can be found here: https://docs.polygon.technology/docs/faq/commit-chain-multisigs/
At this point, this solution seems to us like the best one. That being said, we understand that ‘kicking’ someone out of the network shouldn’t happen unilaterally. We don’t want to create any misunderstandings and, more importantly, we want to be as transparent as we can to our validators, delegators, the ecosystem, and the community as a whole.
A Delicate Balance
An important note on the wider context of governance within Polygon is warranted here. In the Web3 world, a lifecycle of a product is determined heavily by its readiness to serve its presupposed purpose and the impact of external factors, such as development of competing solutions. In this lifecycle, we believe that a moment eventually comes for gradual decentralization and the empowerment of a Governance Community. We are committed to both making the product as efficient and as use-case-ready as possible, while at the same time ensuring we don’t miss the call for the passing of decision-making capabilities.
We understand the limitations of coming to a decision on a matter like this in an almost “improvised” fashion. Currently, a governance-focused team is slowly being shaped at Polygon, responsible for researching and steadily pushing us towards unified off-chain and on-chain governance that will greatly improve dealing with issues such as this.
Concurrently, we believe that transparency is a crucial tool in establishing and fostering trust with the participants of the network, and are set to provide visibility wherever possible. At the same time, we also understand the potential roadblocks that may lie ahead that could potentially lead to a significant loss in efficiency if we put too great of an emphasis on a decentralized decision-making process. A delicate balance needs to be found at every step of the road.
Next Steps
As all proposals go, this too was initially discussed with the Polygon Advisory Board which came to a unanimous recommendation to evict the 2 Validators off the network. Resultingly, we are now taking these consultations to the Validator community, according to which a decision will be made on how to proceed.
Validators, please have your say in this post and the resulting Discord vote, which will be used to take action accordingly.
Thanks,
Polygon Team
