Eight days ago, I raised concerns in the System Chains Bounty top-up discussion about validators with a documented history of questionable practices who continue to occupy privileged positions in the ecosystem, apparently with the support of W3F.
- Mile
- commision flipping and running other identity 
YellowFin Tuna - commision flipping and running other identity- Coinstudio - commision flipping
TUXEDO - commision flipping- Openbitlab - running other identity
- BESTVALIDATOR | ZURICH - running mutiple identities
Eight days later, the curators have not even acknowledged these concerns. This silence says a lot about the level of transparency and accountability being applied to issues raised by the community.
What is particularly difficult to understand is how operators who have repeatedly abused the community’s trust can continue to be granted privileged positions in the System Chains, which are among the most critical pieces of infrastructure in the Polkadot ecosystem.
And now, with multiple referenda on Polkadot and Kusama proposing changes to the invulnerable collators of AssetHub, Coretime and other System Chains, some of the same actors appear once again in the proposed allocations.
For example, the proposed People Polkadot setup is just one example of what is happening across the System Chains, with the same pattern appearing in AssetHub, Coretime and the other System Chains as well.
This should not be treated as business as usual. Operators who have abused the community’s trust should not be rewarded with privileged System Chain positions. They should be removed from these roles, and the community should immediately reconsider and withdraw nominations supporting them.
The community deserves transparency about the selection criteria, an explanation of how previous concerns have been evaluated, and accountability from those responsible for these decisions.
It is now up to the community to scrutinise these referenda carefully, and to see where W3F stands when accountability actually matters.