Request of cancellation of slash for Allnodes
Dear Polkadot community, With utmost regret, we inform you that unfortunate circumstances led to a slashing event for our node. We take full responsibility for this oversight and instantly compensated every user involved. To be fully transparent, what led to slashing was us trying to move our node to upgraded hardware without knowing that the node instantly loads any new keys without having to restart. The plan was to turn off the old node after adding new keys to the new node before restarting it. The reason for our request is that we participate in the 1KV program and have about 2M delegation from W3 Foundation. Our DOT node is based on a 0% commission so that our users can benefit the most from their stake. Our motivation has never been a case of quick money-making opportunity from the delegation of the Polkadot Team. We are long-term believers and devoted followers of the Polkadot community. We are aware that the only way to stay in the 1KV program is if our slashing event cancelled by governance. Otherwise, we will be banned from the program. We are asking for your help. Please accept our humble apology and allow us to continue delivering dedicated Polkadot Staking services to our wide community of members. It goes without saying that we will make sure such misfortune does not happen again in the future. We appreciate you taking the time to read and consider. Warmly, The Allnodes Team
Comments (2)
Comments (2)
I wonder if there is any precedent that we cancelled a validator-fault slash. If not, then a cancellation will set a precedent that we might later regret.
(edited to make it succint)
I expect I may help by contributing with my testimonial on the subject:
- Despite not knowing them, I had one account nominating Allnodes. As I do with a lot of other validators. (fortunately, it was Inactive during that era).
Now, there is a "Renomination required (1)" in that account.
-
At the first moment, my decision was to not nominate Allnodes ever again.
-
However, after they compensated the nominators and publically provided clarification on the incident, I'm now willing to nominate them again and I will do it with even more accounts.
And this is beyond empathy or compassion. This is a rational decision as a nominator.
-
I'm confident that, after this mistake, Allnodes is unlikely to repeat the mistake and they will also take more care on their next steps.
-
I'm also more comfortable nominating a validator that once proactively compensated his nominators in a Slash event.
IMHO, this "cancellation" will have no negative results for the community. Instead, it will bring positive results.
First, it shows that the rules in the code indeed work, no matter what. And still, we ultimately have decentralized governance on them, which is essential for our evolution.
Second, I'm confident that this "cancellation" will incentivize more validators to compensate their nominators in eventual slash events.
This is something very good for nominators!
Many of them panic about slashing, sometimes avoiding staking directly in the blockchain and, instead, choosing to stake on centralized services.
Being aware of a "cancellation" like this, will certain incentivize more people to involve directly with the blockchain.
I wonder if there is any precedent that we cancelled a validator-fault slash. If not, then a cancellation will set a precedent that we might later regret.
(edited to make it succint)I expect I may help by contributing with my testimonial on the subject:
Now, there is a "Renomination required (1)" in that account.
At the first moment, my decision was to not nominate Allnodes ever again.
However, after they compensated the nominators and publically provided clarification on the incident, I'm now willing to nominate them again and I will do it with even more accounts.
And this is beyond empathy or compassion. This is a rational decision as a nominator.
I'm confident that, after this mistake, Allnodes is unlikely to repeat the mistake and they will also take more care on their next steps.
I'm also more comfortable nominating a validator that once proactively compensated his nominators in a Slash event.
IMHO, this "cancellation" will have no negative results for the community. Instead, it will bring positive results.
First, it shows that the rules in the code indeed work, no matter what. And still, we ultimately have decentralized governance on them, which is essential for our evolution.
Second, I'm confident that this "cancellation" will incentivize more validators to compensate their nominators in eventual slash events.
This is something very good for nominators!
Many of them panic about slashing, sometimes avoiding staking directly in the blockchain and, instead, choosing to stake on centralized services.
Being aware of a "cancellation" like this, will certain incentivize more people to involve directly with the blockchain.