Based on the discussion that took place over the most recent PIP, I thought of writing some thoughts down and hopefully start a discussion around what we should consider as good validator criteria, that is directly connected to what we consider a ‘good validator’.
In my opinion, there are two aspects we should take into consideration when defining the ‘good validator’. On the one hand, we have the community, which is the one that will delegate to the validator, and on the other, we have the responsibilities, or best practices, that a validator should follow.
When it comes to the community considerations, we should look into the following:
-
Self-staked tokens: The amount of Matic self-delegated to themselves signals to the community that the validator has skin in the game and will face equally (if not more than the delegators) the consequences of their actions.
-
Track record: Often validators are validating other chains, so in this case, it is useful to see someone’s past activities, governance participation, and general activities that can compose a track record and talk to the practices/ethos of the validator.
-
Community contributions: What the previous two bullet points talk to actually is reputation. So, validators that are active in communities, engage in discussions, create and distribute educational content and actively communicate with the community are also highly valued and can be praised/preferred by the community.
When it comes to the best practices a validator should follow we can consider:
-
Even though validators should not be necessarily doxed, they should have a website where they advertise their operations as they see fit as well as a communication channel. The communication won’t only serve as a point of contact with the community of delegators but more importantly as a way of guaranteeing the network’s health, meaning that there should be a way where critical updates and performance issues can be communicated.
-
Validators play a special role in the governance system. As pillars of the system, ‘good’ validators should vote on every proposal. It is especially important since delegators inherit the vote of their validator.
-
The amount of the self-stake is also of importance since it signals the commitment/ skin in the game that validators have. A validator with a higher amount of self-staked Matic has more skin in the game, making it more liable for its actions.
-
Track record: Delegators will likely look at the track record of the validators they plan to delegate to. This includes seniority, past votes on proposals, historical average uptime, and how often the node was compromised.
-
Additionally, validators should be expected to be active members of the community. They should always be up-to-date with the current state of the ecosystem so that they can easily adapt to any change.
-
Validators should be expected to provision one or more data center locations with redundant power, networking, firewalls, HSMs and servers.
So when it comes to the selection process of the validators all of the above criteria should be taken into consideration and be weighted in the decision-making process.
A well-communicated and documented process that takes into consideration criteria that are important for both the community and the validator side of things (such as security practices, stake, etc) should be put in place. Transparency is not only crucial for the community but also in regard to the health of the network.