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
Clear, consistent, and publicly applied selection criteria.
Transparency of the DN Committee composition (at least to those who passed KYC/AML).
A structured appeals and feedback process for validators not selected.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.