Validator Scoring Rubric and Breakdown

We developed this rubric that is a general fit for validators across various networks. It is sometimes hard to compare due to different technological requirements. Currently, the rubric is more focused on the networks with slashing penalties and high technological requirements (like Cosmos). We are constantly evolving and adjusting our scoring breakdown.

We have personally conducted in-depth interviews with every company that has a review. Some companies refuse to reveal information and we have left those as 0. Please contact us if you have any questions. Read our Validator Guide for more info.

Company:

Team Background

  • Full-Time/Part-Time (/10)
  • Prior Blockchain Dev/Impact (/10)
  • Systems Experience (/10)
  • Recognizability (/10)
  1. 5 – part time. 10 – full time
  2. 5 –  there is some past blockchain development experience.
  3. 10 – the team has worked on high impactful open-source projects/protocols.
  4. 10 – the team has experience in IT, highly available systems
  5. 10 – the team has individuals recognized the blockchain ecosystem

Current Voting Power

  • Total Staked: (/10)
  • Unique Self-Bonders: (/10)
  • Commissions: (/10)
  1. 1 point for each $5M USD staked
  2. Threshold delegation amount (~$100,000 USD)
    1. 2 for 2+ delegators
    2. 5 for 5+ delegators
    3. 10 for 10+ delegators
  3. Commission rates (most significant network for the validator)
    1. 10 : 0-5% commision
    2. 5   : 5-10% commision
    3. 0   : 10+% commision

Historical Metrics

  • Uptime (/10)
  • Proposals (/10)
  1. Hubble event log
    1. 8 – any event of downtime or missed pre-commits
    2. 5 – 5 or more events of downtime or missed pre-commits
    3. 0 – slashed
  2. Hubble governance log
    1. 10 – voted on all proposals
    2.  X – (# voted / total # of proposals)
    3. -2 for each voted on a proposal that was 95% weighted the other way

Bonus

  • Legal Compliance/Insurance
  • Innovations
  1. +5 – SLA and compensates missed rewards
  2. +5 – unique approach and has a differentiator

Code/Infrastructure

Validators

  • Failover (/30)
  1. 8 – 1 validator node
  2. 16 – 2 validator nodes
  3. 24 – both validator nodes are in regionally redundant
  4. 30 – automated failover mechanism

Sentries

  • Private Peering (/10)
  • Agreements with other Validators (/10)
  • Sentry Scaling (/10)
    • Snapshotting
    • Backup Strategy
  1. 10 – has private peering
  2. 10 – private peering with other validators
  3. 5/10 – regular snapshots. 10/10 – snapshots + scaling mechanism

Operations

Monitoring Tools 

  • Network Level (/10)
  • Hardware Level (/10)
  • Paging (/10)
  1. 5 – standard tooling. +5 – additional unique approach
  2. 5 – standard tooling . +5 – additional unique approach
  3. 10 – team has an on-call rotation

Single Point of Failure

  • Multi-Cloud (/10)
  • Multi-Region  (/10)
  1. 10 – Not dependent on a single cloud provider
  2. 10 – Validator located in multiple regions

Key Management 

  • HSM Selections (/10)
  • Smart Key Management (/10)
  1. Best HSM possible. 5 if not. 0 if no HSM
  2. Double sign
    1. 0 -no double sign
    2. 5 – software based
    3. 10- hardware based

Validator Access

  • Physical/Remote (/10)
  1. Located in a secure datacenter – physical hardware.