Polkadot Bridge Hub — Invulnerable Collator Set Adjustment
Dear community,
This referendum seeks to adjust the invulnerable collator set of Polkadot Bridge Hub.
The main objective is to make the invulnerable set better aligned with the risk profile and importance of the respective System Chain, while also keeping the assignment process efficient and consistent across the programme.
The curators also considered the historical assignment of slots across the System Chains. Where possible, the revised assignments favour operators with longer tenure and a demonstrated record of providing reliable service. At the same time, the changes are intended to help even the field for operators who have shown capability and interest in supporting additional System Chains.
Finally, this referendum adjusts the number of permissionless collator slots to ensure that permissionless collators do not outweigh the intended invulnerable set.
To support this, the curators applied a tiering model where each System Chain is categorised from Tier 1 to Tier 3, based on its perceived importance and risk profile. Under this model, Polkadot Bridge Hub is categorised as a Tier-1 chain, with 8 funded community invulnerable collators.
For Polkadot Bridge Hub, the proposed configuration is:
- Tier: Tier 1
- Community-funded invulnerable collators: 8
- Permissionless collator slots: 4
This referendum performs the following changes.
Collators being added
- LuckyFriday —
15MV2nX6BEoiBz8Ua2xNta19sVBKT7kiw2MEHdu2Jd9a4VaC - MathCrypto —
112FKz5UNxjXqe3Wowe73a8FHnR5B4R9qi2pbMaXJczGNJsx - ParaNodes —
16WWmr2Xqgy5fna35GsNHXMU7vDBM12gzHCFGibQjSmKpAN
Collators being removed
- None
Collators retained
The following community invulnerables are already in place and remain part of the final Bridge Hub set:
- Polkadotters / pmensik —
12owmS8Sobqxfx6KK9vk9e67FqnGpZdmxCFCRFptzZdsoujC - Stakeworld —
13Jpq4n3PXXaSAbJTMmFD78mXAzs8PzgUUQd5ve8saw7HQS5 - Iceberg Nodes —
14icei1ZMoG9QtKBFDk4y1eMR756q2TREuRAi2BanJ9MJVPL - openbitlab —
15PUkSRWuefDSLbEYp39MJ1zxShrratU4SXaLZanL8Zkren3 - SIK / crifferent —
15wepZh1jWNqxBjsgErm8HmYiE21n79c5krQJeTsYAjHddeM
Final community invulnerable set
- Polkadotters / pmensik —
12owmS8Sobqxfx6KK9vk9e67FqnGpZdmxCFCRFptzZdsoujC - Stakeworld —
13Jpq4n3PXXaSAbJTMmFD78mXAzs8PzgUUQd5ve8saw7HQS5 - Iceberg Nodes —
14icei1ZMoG9QtKBFDk4y1eMR756q2TREuRAi2BanJ9MJVPL - openbitlab —
15PUkSRWuefDSLbEYp39MJ1zxShrratU4SXaLZanL8Zkren3 - SIK / crifferent —
15wepZh1jWNqxBjsgErm8HmYiE21n79c5krQJeTsYAjHddeM - LuckyFriday —
15MV2nX6BEoiBz8Ua2xNta19sVBKT7kiw2MEHdu2Jd9a4VaC - MathCrypto —
112FKz5UNxjXqe3Wowe73a8FHnR5B4R9qi2pbMaXJczGNJsx - ParaNodes —
16WWmr2Xqgy5fna35GsNHXMU7vDBM12gzHCFGibQjSmKpAN
Best Regards,
Will | Paradox | ParaNodes.io
Comments (1)
Proposal Passed
Looking at the five proposals together, I’m a bit concerned about the level of concentration.
Across these 5 System Chains, we have 30 funded collator slots, but only 22 unique operators. 8 operators hold 2 slots each, meaning they account for 16/30 slots (53.3%).
If we look only at the three Tier-1 System Chains (Asset Hub, Bridge Hub and People), 7 operators hold 14 out of 24 slots (58.3%).
I understand the argument for rewarding operators with a proven track record. Reliability obviously matters for System Chains.
But at some point, repeatedly allocating multiple funded slots to the same operators also creates concentration and makes it harder for new operators to enter the programme.
I think it would be worth discussing whether we should have some kind of limit per operator, or at least a clearer mechanism to balance operational experience with decentralisation and diversity of operators.
Otherwise, we risk creating a system where the same small group keeps rotating between the different System Chains.
Polkassembly is now a read-only archive. Commenting is disabled.