What does it mean for a validator to participate in governance? Are they following current best-practices? If you work at a validator (or are considering one to delegate to), you can use the following questions to conduct a quick assessment.

For independent assessment of validator participation based on the questions below, please contact josh@metagov.org.

Self-assessment questions

  1. Does the validator vote at all?
  2. Does the validator vote on…
    1. protocol upgrades,
    2. grant applications / community pool funding,
    3. general referenda that don’t fall into the above categories, or
    4. all of the above?
  3. Does the validator have a consistent policy when voting? Is this policy public?
  4. Does the validator have a consistent policy on when it does NOT vote? Is this policy public?
  5. Does the validator participate in forums, chats, and other media related to the chain?
  6. Does the validator post justifications about important or controversial proposals before voting?
  7. Does the validator hold some percentage of revenues in native tokens?
  8. Does the validator share commissions with delegators?
  9. Does the validator white label, and is that disclosed to delegators?
  10. Does the validator have internal coherence on values and mission within its team?
  11. Does the validator create proposals?
  12. Does the validator regularly comment on proposals and give feedback?
  13. Does the validator have a consistent policy when communicating to delegators?
  14. Does the validator actively work with the foundation team on protocol improvements and protocol upgrades?
  15. Does the validator have a redelegation policy?
  16. Does the validator audit protocol upgrades related to the chains it supports?
  17. Does the validator publish accessible information on its governance participation, staking activity, and other policies?