Validator Code of Conduct

Recent events surrounding a certain validator (who shall not be named!) suffering a significant downtime of 48 hours have highlighted a need for community validators to agree on a certain minimum standard for the good of the network and to give peace of mind to the staking community.

I would therefore like to present the Validator Code of Conduct. This is a voluntary agreement entered into by validators who are committed to maintaining a minimum standard of safety and redundancy to the Radix mainnet. By agreeing to these terms, the community have some assurances that a validator has the means and ability to rectify any issue swiftly, or unregister with minimal disruption to the network.

Validators who agree to follow these principles will be awarded a Radix Talk badge to signify their commitment to running reliable, safe nodes. Stakers can identify these badge holders at the following link:

Code of Conduct Badge Holders

We will maintain a fully synchronised backup node in a separate location to our primary validator node.

We will ensure our validator keystore file and keyfile password is securely backed up in a separate location to the server(s).

We will endeavour to perform any mandatory updates to our nodes in a timely manner (ideally within 48 hours).

We will ensure that we have a system for monitoring node performance and alerting of critical issues.

We pledge to unregister our validator node in the event of a situation that cannot be resolved within 3 consecutive epochs.

We will ensure a minimum balance of 12XRD is available on our node’s hot wallet to facilitate the transactions to unregister/register.

We will ensure that multiple contact methods are available to the community.

We will provide regular updates to our stakers and the wider community in the event of any downtime that exceeds 3 consecutive epochs.

We will publish a report after resolving any incident(s) of downtime that exceeds 3 consecutive epochs and provide steps to mitigate future occurrences.

If you have any feedback or suggestions, please feel free to comment and I would welcome any validator who wishes to agree to follow these principles to respond below.

23 Likes

Radstakes agrees to follow the principles of the validator code of conduct :slightly_smiling_face:

14 Likes

Radixpool agrees to follow the principles of the Validator Code of Conduct

13 Likes

Great initiative. Juicy Stake agrees to follow the principles of the Validator Code of Conduct.

13 Likes

Radical Staking agrees to follow the principles of the Validator Code of Conduct

16 Likes

MattiaNode also agrees to follow the principles of the Validator Code of Conduct.

15 Likes

@radixlogicalmoon also agrees to follow the principles of the Validator Code of Conduct

15 Likes

Well done - great work guys! :+1:

10 Likes

@RadUp.io also agrees to follow the principles of the Validator Code of Conduct

13 Likes

Radixstaking agrees to follow the principles of the Validator Code of Conduct.

13 Likes

ApolloPool.io agrees to follow the principles of the Validator Code of Conduct :ringer_planet:

15 Likes

Sealnode agrees to follow the principles of the Validator Code of Conduct

15 Likes

RadixDLT Staking agreed to follow the principles of the Validator Code of Conduct

15 Likes

Avaunt Staking Agrees. :handshake:

14 Likes

StakingCoins agrees on this code of conduct

14 Likes

Radnode absolutely agrees to follow the validator code of conduct. :v:

14 Likes

AcmeNodes agrees to follow the principles of the validator code of conduct :slightly_smiling_face:

15 Likes

EasyStake agrees to follow the principles of the Validator Code of Conduct

13 Likes

I want to follow this code of conduct, but I don’t have a website with multiple contact information. Can we drop the website criterium?

People can contact me via TG and Discord where I’m quite active. I would hope that suffices?

17 Likes

I’d be totally ok with that Jazzer. I think the “spirit” of the code is to make sure that you are easily contactable by stakers and other node runners rather than being too prescriptive about requiring a website.

If other’s are also ok with this then smash the “Like/Heart” icon on Jazzer’s message above. If anyone objects, reply with your concerns.

I don’t want to unilaterally just agree without some indication of consensus :slight_smile:

9 Likes