Node Provider Audit discussion

[wpb]

Thanks for your response Alex. I look forward to seeing how this develops.

@Lorimer

1. A portion of node provider rewards being automatically staked into a NNS-slashable neuron (but which the NP also has control over)

I believe the node providers have already indicated this is a problem including your own co.delta team member @MalithHatananchchige with well reasoned justification here and here. Of course, there is always a way to incentivize it if needed. In this case, it might require increasing the node rewards to help offset the impact to cash flow that they are expecting in their business plans. Perhaps there are other incentives too.

@Lorimer

2. No privileged entities in the governance process

• (I’ve been somewhat sceptical about NP audits from the start - unless the processes, procedures, and ideally information is available and transparent)

I agree you have been skeptical, but it’s the path we are heading down. I don’t know how else we can maintain privacy for node providers without having privileged entities that are responsible for reviewing private information. I think this one is a real challenge.

@Lorimer

3. Public, on-chain statements that act as a Sword of Damocles if they’re ever found to have been blatantly inaccurate.

• I’m not opposed to the use of periodic audits (or detective work) for this purpose. I like the general idea. My concern is that absence of findings can give false confidence, particularly if the auditors are elevated to some privileged status in the governance process.

@Lorimer

4. Public, on-chain legal documents that have legal weight (rather than being inadmissible), and which would conceivably form part of legal proceeding in the NPs jurisdiction if legal action were ever taken.

I suspect that node providers would agree. I haven’t seen any node provider express any resistance to this kind of idea. They generally seem to want to be transparent as much as reasonably possible.