Transparency in DN Validator Selection — Community Concerns

[ruby]

Hi everyone,

Over the past days, several validators have raised serious concerns about the transparency, fairness, and consistency of the DN validator selection process (Cohort 3). Despite repeated attempts to engage within the Decentralized Nodes group, many questions remain unanswered, highlighting systemic issues affecting trust and fairness.

Key concerns voiced by multiple validators:

• Selective application of rules – discouraged or unique locations, validator contributions, and hardware requirements are applied inconsistently.

• Favoritism and unequal standards – newcomers with little or no track record sometimes receive maximum allocations, while experienced validators with years of contributions are excluded.

• Opaque “holistic approach” – the methodology is vague, unmeasurable, and leaves decisions open to interpretation.

• Fear of speaking out – validators hesitate to share criticism publicly, fearing exclusion from future cohorts.

• Financial impact – DN rewards are a critical source of support for many validators. Sudden exclusion creates instability and uncertainty.

• Comparison to 1KV – the 1k Validators program was widely seen as clear and fair. The DN program is increasingly viewed as a “black box” with faceless decision-making.

Voices from the community

“It feels like hiring a new kid who just walked into your office with a flashy presentation, while you ditch experienced, reliable people who have been contributing for years. It makes no sense — unless, of course, there are friends in the right places.”

“If no concrete feedback can be shared, let’s at least be upfront. Right now, discouraged locations are ignored selectively, contributions are ignored selectively, and unique setups are ignored selectively. It all feels arbitrary.”

“Some validators are too afraid to speak up, because they believe even raising questions could get them excluded from all future cohorts. That alone is alarming.”

The risk

If these issues are not addressed, the DN program risks losing credibility and validator trust, which directly impacts the health and decentralization of the Polkadot ecosystem.

Immediate next step

Given the scale of concerns raised, the community suggests that the results of Cohort 3 be temporarily reviewed and re-evaluated under clarified and transparent criteria before proceeding further.

Suggested steps forward

1. Clear, consistent, and publicly applied selection criteria.

2. Transparency of the DN Committee composition (at least to those who passed KYC/AML).

3. A structured appeals and feedback process for validators not selected.

4. Exploration of a Validator Charter – outlining rights, duties, and guiding principles for both validators and the DN Committee.

This is not about blame, but about ensuring trust, transparency, and fairness in a decentralized ecosystem.
We invite both validators and W3F representatives to engage in this discussion and work together towards a healthier selection process.

[bill_w3f]

As stated previously (several times in various channels), I have personally reviewed both the selection process and the results. Please note the selection process was done entirely independent of me - I had not even seen the spreadsheet before reviewing or provided any input.

There are also several inaccuracies or misunderstandings above. I will highlight some of them but this shouldn’t be considered an exclusive list.

1. One of the publicly stated goals of Cohort 3 was to bring in fresh validators, especially from outside the ecosystem. This is explictly mentioned several times here: Decentralized Nodes - Processes, Selection Criteria & Rules I want to quote it directly here, to be clear: “New applicants (that haven’t participated in the previous cohort) will be favoured” and “Participants with no or little previous Polkadot affinity that join the program will be favoured.”
2. The rules are stated here and have always been publicly available: Decentralized Nodes - Processes, Selection Criteria & Rules
3. All validator candidates can write to validators@web3.foundation and receive feedback on what they could do to improve. Once again, as stated numerous times, we cannot provide comparisons to others, as they may have provided private data.
4. There were several reasons to shift from 1KV to Decentralized Nodes, including complaints from people on other topics (e.g. inability to stay in the active set, technical problems with the setup which caused long periods of downtime, even - and I remember this clearly - problems with communicating with the maintainers of the program)
5. I don’t know how we could be clearer that speaking up is not penalized. We have not communicated anything that would imply that, except to say that people should not be insulting the selection committee.
6. Inclusion in each Decentralized Nodes program has never been a guarantee, and never described as such. It is similar with Decentralized Voices - nobody is “kicked out”, they are just not selected for the next cohort.

It is important to note that Decentralized Nodes is a project run by Web3 Foundation, not by the protocol or by OpenGov. While we do our best to help nodes join the active set, the final truth is on-chain. Community members can and should nominate good validators, and validators should do their best to reach out to the community to earn their trust and nominations. DN helps people with that, but it should not be seen as the only - or even primary - way for validators to join the active set.

[ruby]

Thank you for your detailed clarification.

That said, several community concerns remain:

• Transparency and consistency – Multiple validators reported that discouraged locations, unique setups, and past contributions appear to have been applied inconsistently. Clearer documentation or examples would help everyone understand how decisions are evaluated.

• Feedback mechanisms – While individual candidates can reach out via email, many validators expressed the need for more structured, transparent feedback, especially about why certain applications were preferred over others, without revealing private data.

• Perception of fairness – Many long-term validators feel that the selection of newcomers with minimal track record, while experienced validators were excluded, creates a perception of arbitrariness. Clearer explanation of the “holistic approach” and measurable criteria could mitigate these concerns.

• DN support – DN support is critical for many validators’ financial stability and ecosystem participation, making clarity and fairness even more important.

Given the scale of these concerns and the impact on long-term contributors, the community suggests that Cohort 3 selections be temporarily reviewed and re-evaluated under clarified and transparent criteria. The goal is not to dispute the intent of the program but to ensure that all validators—both new and long-standing—have confidence in the fairness, transparency, and integrity of the DN selection process.

We hope the DN Committee and W3F representatives can consider these points constructively and are happy to provide further input or evidence if helpful.

[florentina57]

Bill has already summarized most of the important points already. I will just add my POV:

The DN Program is run by the W3F, they have clear guidelines and objectives posted on the website of the program. Like any program elsewhere, applicants should read the requirements and prepare a strong application, be ready to face the competition and wait for the selection results. At least this is how I see it.

As I understand it, the goal is to contribute to decentralization by having truly diverse node operators, which includes geographical location and variety of OS and providers, but also incorporating people who are committed to the ecosystem and contribute in ways beyond validating. Experience is valued as well, but none of these variables by themselves will guarantee to get into the program.

As an example I will share my experience:

As a newcomer to the ecosystem earlier this year I decided to apply to Cohort 2 with 2 Kusama and 2 Polkadot nodes. I was accepted only for my Kusama nodes, I felt dissappointed at first but made the decision to commit to the program and I requested feedback via email, which I received. I worked on strengthening my application to Cohort 3 based on that feedback and I applied again.

I am happy to report that this time I was selected with all my nodes (Polkadot & Kusama). However, I was ready for any outcome. As it is a competitive process and all one can do is have a strong application, not knowing how other validators’ applications look like, there are no guarantees.

This is just one validator’s story but I know that there are many more. I encourage everyone to share theirs, since I hardly believe that the voice of 3 validators represents the entire validator community.

[ech0.re]

Hi,

Thanks to @bill_w3f and @florentina57 for summarizing correctly the situation. Since this post is inviting validators to engage I’d like also like to comment.

I think what’s common among the complaining people is not understanding that favored setups and locations are not enough to get selected. It’s a bonus. The full selection criteria is available here publicly: Decentralized Nodes - Processes, Selection Criteria & Rules . And even if your application is excellent, it will be compared with other excellent applications, and at some point a choice has to be made.

One thing for sure is that the DN Committee never announced that you’d be signing life contracts for validation. It was always announced as 4 months, that’s it.

Now for my own experience, I have always been treated by the DN Committee with the utmost respect and professionalism, and I have also witnessed them treat other people the same way. I have been selected in 1KV and all DN Cohorts and if one day I’m rejected I’m thankful that I was given the opportunity to participate. A spot in the active set is not guaranteed to anyone and we’ve been given a very nice opportunity here by W3F.

[ruby]

Hi everyone,

First of all, thank you to the DN Committee for their work in running the program and publishing the Cohort 3 results. As validators, we appreciate the effort that goes into managing such a diverse set of applicants.

That said, several points have been raised within the community where some clarification would help improve transparency and trust in the process. I would like to bring them up here in the spirit of constructive dialogue:

---

1. Chris-Staking

In earlier discussions, Chris-Staking was reportedly excluded from participation. In Cohort 3, however, both of their nodes (Chris-Staking/p1, Chris-Staking/p2) were included again.

• Could the Committee clarify whether past exclusions are reconsidered in later cohorts, and if so, what criteria are applied for reinstatement?
  (Related rule: “Violation of the Terms & Conditions will result in the immediate removal from the program and disqualification from any future cohorts.”)

---

2. Iceberg Nodes and new wallets

In Cohort 3, Iceberg Nodes appears with new stash addresses (e.g. 13N7R5rP3gtz, 14aD1tQavhRi).

• Is it acceptable for existing operators to apply with fresh wallets?

• How does the Committee ensure that applications represent continuous validator identity and track record, rather than just new addresses?
  (Related rule: “The validators must have an updated on-chain identity on each chain they’re applying for.”)

---

3. Transfers between Helikon and Permanence DAO

On-chain data shows a transfer of 7,500 DOT from Helikon to PERMANENCE DAO/TURING.

• The DN rules state that operators should remain financially independent. Could the Committee clarify how such transfers are evaluated under this rule?

• Are there safeguards to ensure that operators remain independent in practice?
  (Related rule: “Node operators are prohibited from borrowing the funds for their operations or lending or gifting funds to other participants for this purpose.”)

---

Why this matters

We fully support the goals of DN to promote fairness, diversity, and decentralization. At the same time, transparent clarification on cases like these would go a long way in strengthening community trust and understanding of the process.

Thank you in advance for providing more insight.

[ruby]

Thank you for sharing these perspectives and success stories. It’s good to see that for some validators, improvements and persistence led to positive results.

In my case, however, the experience has been different. For Cohort 3, I invested significant effort and tangible financial resources into continuously improving and optimizing my validator — upgrading to a stronger CPU, switching to a different architecture, and maintaining a unique region. Despite these ongoing improvements and investments, I was not selected.

This contrast shows why clearer and more structured feedback is so important. Without knowing which factors were decisive, validators are left guessing what actually matters, even when they align with the stated criteria.

The intention is not to dispute outcomes or guarantees, but to underline that transparency and consistency are essential. When validators can understand how their efforts are evaluated, it not only strengthens trust in the DN program but also enables everyone to contribute more effectively to decentralization.

[AlexPromoTeam]

DN Cohort 3 better be cancelled, it’s too scandalous. I have no trust to the current anonymous DN committee.

DN committee, you force all of us give you all our KYC and all kind of tests, it’s fair if you announce the decision makers in charge of all of this.

[kukabi]

Hi @ruby. Just to clarify, the funds on the Permanence DAO validator account are not a gift, and they are not borrowed. Those funds are Permanence DAO’s own, and Permanence is a separate entity of 8 members from around the globe. As you know, I gave more details in the Element chat regarding Permanence’s operations, I can copy them over here too if it would add value to the discussion, but I think the status of the self-stake is clear now. Regards.

[ruby]

Thank you for the clarification. I understand your point that the funds are now considered Permanence DAO’s own.

However, my concern is not about legal definitions, but about the spirit of the DN rules. The rule exists to prevent financial dependency or cross-support between participants, since this can undermine fairness and decentralization.

If funds originally came from another DN participant (even if later assigned to a DAO), it raises the question whether this situation falls within the prohibition on borrowing or gifting funds for validator operations.

I believe it would be helpful for the DN Committee to provide an official interpretation of how such cases are treated, so that all participants clearly understand the boundaries and similar situations in the future can be judged consistently.

Transparency on this point would help avoid confusion and ensure trust in the program.

[AlexPromoTeam]

For those interested, here’s the latest installment of the new Polkadot drama featuring the Anonymous DN Committee and the fearless Alex PromoTeam

Thank you for the clarification.

However, your position on this matter is completely different from what you said during the Cohort 1 application process.

If you apply as an individual, you are an individual and need to be independent of anyone else in terms of technology, finances, etc. If you apply as an entity, you can have employees, but you must also be independent in those areas.

I don’t know how these two entities or individuals applied, but there is definitely a conflict of interest, in my view. They have four supported nodes from two separate applications, but not one or two nodes from one application. These two applicants are connected in a way that makes it easy for them to drop 7,500 DOT, so they have some financial relationships. That’s the main point; the transaction is just proof, not the case. There are so many interconnections between the applicants in technological and financial terms, as evidenced by comments, including yours, and public transactions.

The rules were provided by Web3F, but probably only for participants, not implementers. Your comment broke the letter and spirit of the rules, but it seems that exceptions can always be found easily if the executors (Mihalis, in this case) are interested. From my point of view, it’s called favoritism.

Therefore, like many DN participants, I have questions and concerns about objectivity and impartiality.

Successful attempts to push through flawed decisions at all costs can gradually undermine trust in Web3F as an institution.

Thank you, however, for coming forward as an individual and an employee of Web3F rather than as an abstract anonimous DN committee.

[AlexPromoTeam]

Yes, I agree. The matter is closed here because it doesn’t make sense to discuss it in this room, where most of the audience depends on your personal decision.

Please consider resigning from your position voluntarily. In my opinion, your actions are harming the reputation of Web3F and the Web3 idea as a whole.

I came here five years ago after hearing Gavin speak about Web3, new fair decentralized and permissionless networks, and the economy. This program has turned from 1K validators into a closed club of 50 “Euro-friends from Sub0”.

I dedicated five years of my life to Polkadot, validator, and its hard-earned, organic nominations. It took thousands of hours of work from me and my team—blood, sweat, and tears.

If you are going to escape the case that easy, I would say I have five more years.

But to be positive and constructive, I suggest inviting an independent mediator whom Web3F and the community trust. He or she can look into the inner workings and provide an opinion about the Anonymous DN Committee, Rules, and Cohort3 selection process in general.

[ruby]

@AlexPromoTeam Thank you for voicing the community’s concerns about DN Committee transparency and Cohort 3 fairness. The idea of an independent mediator to review processes is a great step toward rebuilding trust. @bill_w3f could W3F explore this to address validator concerns?

[bill_w3f]

Thank you for your suggestion. Given W3F’s limited resources, this is not a priority for us.

[IcebergNodes]

@ruby

2. Iceberg Nodes and new wallets

In Cohort 3, Iceberg Nodes appears with new stash addresses (e.g. 13N7R5rP3gtz, 14aD1tQavhRi).

• Is it acceptable for existing operators to apply with fresh wallets?
• How does the Committee ensure that applications represent continuous validator identity and track record, rather than just new addresses?
  (Related rule: “The validators must have an updated on-chain identity on each chain they’re applying for.”)

Hi @ruby , I’m writing this forum post just to clarify the information regarding section 2 of your post (quoted above), since you are referring to Iceberg Nodes.

---

@ruby

Is it acceptable for existing operators to apply with fresh wallets?

Just copy-pasting the relevant information from DN rules:

---

@ruby

How does the Committee ensure that applications represent continuous validator identity and track record, rather than just new addresses?

1. The new validators (DN3 & DN4) have sub-identities set under the super-identity of Iceberg Nodes (like for any other Iceberg Nodes validator)
2. There are specific fields on the application form that link the application to validator identity and track record: email address, Element handle, emergency phone number, etc…
   The email address is probably the most important piece of information, not only because it is linked to the KYC/KYB record, but also because, for the first time, it allowed previous DN cohort participants (in this case, those from cohort 2) to skip some, or even all, sections of the application form if no updates needed to be reported in those sections. I found this feature particularly interesting, as I believe it helped both applicants and evaluators optimize their workload and avoid repeatedly writing and reading the same answers.

---

Since I have found myself writing in this thread, I would like to conclude by sharing a few thoughts on my experience with the Decentralized Nodes program. I have been successfully selected in every edition of the program so far, so you might assume that my perspective is biased. All I can say is that, to achieve this result, I followed the program’s rules: both during the application phase (taking into account the configurations that were indicated as preferred) and throughout the nomination period (striving to provide the best possible service). I would also like to add that, whenever I communicated with the DN commission via email (whether they contacted me or I contacted them) I always received clear and timely responses that conveyed professionalism, attention to detail, and punctuality. I hope that I, in turn, have managed to embody and reflect these same values.

[ruby]

@IcebergNodes Thanks for clarifying the rules and your experience with the DN program. Just to confirm: two of your nodes are already independent (with enough nominations for the active set), and you applied with two new nodes (e.g., 13N7R5rP3gtz, 14aD1tQavhRi) that were selected for Cohort 3, giving you four nodes in the DN program and 8 active nodes in total, correct?
This raises concerns about fairness, as those two DN slots could have gone to other validators. Could W3F share more details on how slots are allocated to ensure transparency? Looking forward to your thoughts!

[IcebergNodes]

@ruby

giving you four nodes in the DN program

That’s not correct. I currently have only two nodes in Cohort 3 of the Decentralized Nodes program: DN3 and DN4. DN1 and DN2 were part of earlier cohorts. I apologize for any confusion caused by the sub-identities; I am happy to rename them to more up-to-date tags (the new tags were chosen solely to avoid overlap).

Also, as stated before, the rules are clear and public:

I don’t believe I have committed any violation, nor do I think any other participant who made use of the same rule has. Moreover, there is a very useful tool developed by DozeNodes that provides a clear indication of the level of independence of the validators.

[AlexPromoTeam]

Two, four, six, eight, ten, twenty nodes — I have a simple question.

Why are you seeking more and more when the seats are limited and you’re just taking someone else’s “bread”? Just because you can?

And why does DN support this behavior with its nominations? Does it bring the promised decentralization, sustainability, and resilience that we are all seeking? Where is the logic? Or is it because you can?

Watch this film on a weekend. It’s about our situation.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_platform

[ruby]

Hi everyone! I’ve put together a quick overview of validators who’ve made it through all cohorts and currently have 3 or more nodes in the active set. You can verify this information yourself by name, with the screenshot provided for clarity. The data shows that operators like IIceberg Nodes (8 nodes), Rafael || LEGEND Nodes (6), kukabi | helikon.io/ Permanence DAO (4), ddozen | DOZENODES (5), ggame.theory (3), Curu | Polkadotters (4), Paradox | ParaNodes.io (5), and kkhastor (3) have multiple nodes, totaling 38 nodes from 8 operators. This amounts to approximately 6.3% of the active set (assuming around 600 active validators) and approximately 38.4% of the 99 nodes in Cohort 3, which stands out as an interesting concentration. To be clear, this isn’t about envy or anything negative - it’s just the first thought that comes to mind when seeing this pattern. I’d be curious to learn how this fits with decentralization goals?

[ruby]

Hello fellow Polkadot community members! I’ve been raising concerns about transparency within the DN program, particularly regarding validator contributions and selection criteria, as the community’s interest in fairness remains strong. While awaiting a response from W3F on potential avenues to address this collaboratively, I’d greatly appreciate direct input: What alternative approaches might W3F suggest to enhance transparency in DN operations? I’m eager for a clear path forward to work together on this.

I’d also like to kindly remind all validators here: this initiative aims to enhance our ecosystem’s fairness. Your support is crucial—please consider contributing to the 40 DOT preimage deposit (refundable if the proposal passes) at address 13mjnUDrHwYGATFB1FkFkZ1U3kYFsAQfHYTdcc8p3HP1xzZA or via DM. Even 1-2 DOT can help. Alternatively, you can choose to stand aside - if you don’t want to participate, please let me know via DM or support with a like to show your stance, as I’d like to understand how many validators feel there’s unfairness in the DN program. I respect your decision either way. Please note that I’ll cover all expenses myself, so your contributions are entirely optional. Let’s work together to strengthen Polkadot—your support or feedback would mean a lot!