Proposal "Supervalidator"

Value: Improving the quality of validation, increasing the responsibility of “supervalidators”

Suggestion: separate “supervalidators” into separate nodes, supervalidators are always an odd number of participants (needed to increase the accuracy of received triplets), for example 3,5,7,9,11.

1.At the top level is the Golden Team validator. It is needed if supervalidators. did not reach a consensus.

Example: 2 out of 3 super validators accepted the triplet, 1 validator rejected the data is passed to the Golden Team validator, Depending on the decision of the Golden Team, the participants who made the right decision receive a reward from the participants who made the “wrong” decision, while 80% of the reward is returned to the Golden Team treasury or are transferred to the Golden Team validator. Supervalidators are grouped into triplets. At level 1, appeals of participants who do not agree with the consensus adopted in the nodes are considered. Also, if the supervalidator missed or did not make a decision on the validated triplet within 3 days, the appeal goes to other participants for consideration. If a super-validator has missed 3 rounds in a row (9 days), the validator nodes are redistributed among the remaining super-validators. Blocked points are returned to the super-validator and it is excluded from the super-validators.

2.Each supervalidator has validator nodes (with an odd number of participants). Each node has 3 validators (may vary depending on network load). For each validator node, the “supervalidator” blocks Golden points in the amount of 10,000 points, in case of slashing specified in paragraph 1. The number of nodes is unlimited and is limited only by the size of the blocked “supervalidator” points. All nodes of one validator are pooled, each pool has 3 validators. If consensus is adopted in 3 pools, then all participants receive a reward. The reward is distributed to 98% of the validators and 2% to the super validator. Any participant who has bought tokens/points can stake the Validator, thus helping the validator form new nodes. The supervalidator can exclude the validator from the validator node if the validator’s accuracy is not satisfied, or sees the validator’s blind vote, while the earned reward is returned to the validator + it is proposed to be tested for the validator, if successful, it can apply to the validator node. The level of accuracy is set by the supervalidator itself. The participant who sent the stake to the validator receives a reward of 50% from the node if 10,000 points were staked, or in proportion to the size of his contribution. The funds received by the supervalidator from the participant who sent to staking do not participate in level 1 slashing, but are guaranteed by the supervalidator’s reserve in the amount of 10% of the pool size.

  1. If the validators do not reach a consensus, it is submitted to the super-validator, depending on the acceptance or rejection, the participants receive a reward or a penalty.

@S_K123 In case of using low-quality bots. Participants who added triplets will appeal and your nodes with points will burn and you will be blocked

I am not sure I quite understand what is being proposed here. Can you define what you are calling a “supervalidator” and “validator”?

Supervalidor combines through the cells of the validators controls the accuracy and correctness of the received triplets. Also bears the risk of paying fines on appeals. In the picture, the blue circle indicates the validator