Expand your search criteria a bit more to look at any validator that changes commission to 100%.
If you don’t claim an era it’s possible to change your fee in the future and claim the previous era at the new fee. I’ve never tried this in practice myself to confirm it’s true but it was talked about somewhere in here before. The premise is that you run a validator, allow 100 eras to pass, flip commission to 100%, wait for it to apply, then claim all the eras. I do have some vague memory of looking at a few accounts that did this a few years back.
Like I said previously, while this is new for you, people have been annoyed by this for years. No one ever cared enough to act. I had to complain for months just to get W3F to implement a simple KYC. This is when they changed it from 1kv to DN.
The needing to complain or interact a lot to get anything done is a common theme and it’s a reason why people are angry.
Just look at this thread Discontinuation of ink: Rust smart contract language - #8 by Kratist0s
The W3F should have known already if ink was part of the new roadmap or not. Why did it take months for them to finally say that?
Just look at the DV and DN programs – there was no experimentation, no changes, no real oversight or management – no plan. As far as I can tell, they no longer have the capacity to meet the foundation’s stated mission. What do they even do? I’m trying to figure it out.
It’s the common theme you’ll find in a lot of issues around the ecosystem. People complain about stuff but those complaints don’t make their way into a task management system to be resolved. I just recently realized (last weekend) that even though there are all these duplicate identities that the DN program itself was massively beneficial for that thing for which we dare not speak.
I told a few people that the DN program should not be shut down because of its benefit to that thing for which we dare not speak – But I already know it will have 0 impact – and – I can prove it with math. It’s not subjective.