Polkadot Staking Dashboard (staking.polkadot.network) and Polkadot.js not supporting decentralization of Validators by design

Polkadot Staking Dashboard (staking.polkadot.network) not supporting independent Validators, 1KV participants , and its bad for Decentralization.

Algorithm that recommend validators for new stakers works awful. It recommends mostly big networks of multi - validators, who already have full stake.
For 1KV Validators impossible to get into recommended, even if they have low fee.

So, official Polkadot Staking Dashboard supports multi-account validators. They make big ones even more bigger and steal from little independent validators who really provide quality service, unique locations and true decentralization! Its really bad!

Please change the algorithm of recommendation, give more priority for unique locations and give preferences for 1KV program participants , its more fair!!!


The Staking Dashboard has a Feedback option for things like this:


The staking dashboard prioritises validator performance based on era points for last 10 days from the current era. This is because stakers want, above all else, to reliably receive rewards on a daily basis. We cannot compromise on this - we need to maximise probability of receiving rewards.

There are however various tools and filters to promote lesser known or lesser active validators.

It recommends mostly big networks of multi - validators, who already have full stake.

Incorrect, it recommends high performing validators based on recent era point history.

For 1KV Validators impossible to get into recommended, even if they have low fee.

This is not true. There is an “optimal selection” option when generating nominees, that mixes high performing validators with less active ones. The latter is a smaller share, because to reiterate, daily rewards need to be probable for all stakers, otherwise they will not stake on Polkadot.

In terms of inclusivity for all validators, this will likely remain an issue until the validator set can better scale.

I am open to hear suggestions on improving this. In the same manner, 1KV should also revise their strategy if they wish validators to be online more often.

They make big ones even more bigger and steal from little independent validators who really provide quality service.

The biggest “operator” is Jaco and his validators. Why? Because they have a large backing as a result of a long history of 1% commission, and are therefore elected very often. In addition, his nodes, when active, regularly generate the largest amount of era points. So they are probably run on high end, optimal servers.

These economics are out of control of the staking dashboard. E.g. we cannot dictate how validators market and attract backing. If users want to discover lesser known validators we can provide the tools to make it easy, but we cannot force users to do that.

And the dashboard does more than any other staking UI in that we have a dedicated community page that allows any validator operator to upload their data to the page.

For whatever reason, 1KV have opted not to upload themselves as an operator on the Community page, but they are more than welcome to.

unique locations and true decentralization! Its really bad!

We recently integrated Polkawatch support that actually documents a validator’s geography. Click “View Decentralization” under a validator item on the Validator page to see where they are operating.

Ultimately we can always provide more tooling to discover lesser known validators. I would love to hear suggestions on doing so.


It is great that you have passion for Polkadot and that you are actively exploring how to make staking a more decentralised system, I can see this dedication unquestionably.

What I would suggest though is to refrain from using language like “its really bad” or “works awful”; these are very strong statements that will likely upset or at the least demotivate those who have actively been working on the dashboard and staking system.

We dedicate many many hours of our lives to try to improve Polkadot - and even though not all the decisions made along the way will turn out to be the best ones - rest assured that we all share the same enthusiasm as yourself and are open to improving decentralisation and fairness in the systems we create - this is after all the main reason we do what we do.


Good afternoon. I am an independent network validator. I fully support you in the fact that it is impossible for 1KV participants to get included in the nomination recommendations. At the moment, my node is completely dependent on the 1KV program. I wish there was an algorithm that would promote independent nodes with the help of netizens. This is the only way we will become independent and more decentralized.


Ross, sorry for my “rude” words , its because English is not my native language . You are doing really great job, my intention is just to make our ecosystem more stable, robust, diverse and decentralized. I see the stream of nominations goes into ecosystem and it goes to same validators as before, not helping 1KV Validators community grow. It makes me upset because I really try my best to grow organically and efficient. With my personal recommendation more than 100k DOT was purchased and staked, not mentioning content, education, and other activities as Head Ambassador.

I am one of the first Polkadot Ambassadors, contribute to the ecosystem more than 4 years, I started a lot of initiatives and projects across the ecosystem, such as Parachain News https://twitter.com/DotParachains PromoTeam https://twitter.com/PromoTeamPD , I started Web3 community from the scratch in Central Asia, and developing and supporting Russian speaking community as Ambassador for more than 4 years and doing many other things connected to Polkadot.

I have Polkadot Validator, and part of 1KV for more than 2 years and I still dont have a full organic stake.

Maybe its not something wrong with me and other 1KV Validators but interface of Polkadot.js and Dashboard, which preference those who are already in Active list, but not who are mostly in Waiting list.

Here is my Validator, hardware is good and unique location, its hard to make validator at this location by the way, and much more expensive then Europe or US.

PromoTeam | Web3 Uzbekistan 12BkPLskXyXrHhktrinLxVFkPzzvCzCyVCaqHkUEoxMwSzeq


Where would I find this? EDIT: I found it, if you go to Stake → Nominate, the bottom panel will have a link to “Nominate” if your wallet is not already nominating. If you are already nominating there is instead a “Manage” link, which you first need to click, then click “Back to Methods” to get to the Optimal Selection option.

1KV doesn’t operate validators, they are a nominator. As a validator, I would like to add myself. Can you provide any instructions on how to do that?

Hi all! I support the idea! Alex is right. I changed more than one location and found several data centers in different continents with truly unique locations with excellent servers, but this did not give me any significant advantages(


My point is if we stay as it is, it’s not organically increasing the number of small independent validators with full stake. Only big whale validators are benefiting of increasing the amount starkers. It will cause risks when SEC or OFAC or other FUCK will come to 10 big whale validators and say don’t do transactions from this address. Do you want it? Me not, if there will be at least 300-500 independent small validators it’s much harder to execute.


My proposal:
1.To add new category to section Nominate:
“1KV Validators
Participants of 1KV program. Choose to support the decentralization”
2.In “Optimal selection” include at least 3-5 validators from 1KV Program for example who are in active set now, or other criteria, but including 1KV participants. There are 264 participants of the 1KV program and about 1000 total validators , I think its fair and long term effective to give 3-5 of 16 seats in every recommended validators list to 1KV participants.
What do you think? Is it possible?


Considering that same validators have a lot of nodes running, diversification in practice rather then in theory does make sense. 1kV should be competitive to get in the active set, but that competitiveness is hard to reach for startups. So I would encourage an experiment like Alex suggested, and then see the results, re-evaluate.


I am 1kv program participant and I support the subject. I think that the main purpose of governance tokens (which the DOT is) is to ensure the democratic, not oligarchy approach on making decisions.

Next, this idea I believe should be extended to the way of how we validate the chain. If an algorithm is based on most stacking + most produced blocks, then the distribution of living validators narrows to the abnormal for the blockchain, meaning centralized.

Simply saying, assets+hardware whales control the validation process. Here, I think we can sacrifice the overall performance for the sake of making it more distributed; hence, reliable.


I concur, it truly does make sense to promote 1KV validators a bit more. I would say there are a few reasons for this

  1. W3F already hand-picked high-quality validators so it doesn’t make much sense to hesitate to offer them for nomination
  2. The main goal of 1KV is to decentralize an active set of validators - isn’t the best course of action to make them sustainable?

Therefore, in line with what Alex said, I would support adding a new category (maybe named Community validators as I suppose nominators are not familiar with 1KV). On the other hand, I think Optimal selection could handle even more than 3 validators from 1KV. Our nomination pool is split half/half between those active and between those who are not and it still provides quite a competitive APR.


I want to ask everyone one question - What do you think is it ok to recommend this list of validators for newcomers?

It’s the random list recommended by Polkadot Dashboard 2/3 of this list are the validators that have 10+ Validators in Polkadot, already have full stake and getting bigger and bigger and open new and new nodes and dump earned tokens to the market. And Dashboard and Polkadot.js. supporting this policy by the design, by default. Why?


The list should probably be designed to list no more than one validator from each group. i.e. only one Jaco, one P2P, etc. That would be a first step, I think, to promoting greater decentralization of the validator set. It would also be interesting to look at geography, and try to ensure the recommended list is not all in one place.

If your objective is to “support decentralization”, then special-casing 1KV validators goes in the opposite direction, because you’re giving power to the people within the W3F that decide who gets in the 1KV program, effectively making the selection more centralized.

1 Like

There’s no such thing a “validator groups”, just validators that have the same name that they can choose at will. If you start penalizing validators that have similar names, they can just change their names in two clicks to make it look like they’re not a group.

It’s also not possible to “look at geography”, that’s not within the realm of technical possibilities.

The dashboard and PolkadotJS treat all validators are equal.

What you seem to suggest is doing positive discrimination in favor of smaller validators. In addition to being controversial, it’s also simply not possible to know who is a “big validator” and who is a “small validator”.


I don’t think we should throw out an idea just because it seems easy to circumvent. At least giving people the option to filter out “duplicates” seems like a common sense idea.

It is totally possible to look at geography. You have not heard of geolocation based on IP address? 1KV does this already.