Noble Warrior Challenge -100 Points Penalty

I just entered the active set and I had a problem in the first epoch, so the Noble Warrior mission took back the 100 points it gave me and gave me -100 points and my score dropped from 220 to 20. :no_mouth: If you need to never be offline to get 100 points from here, it is a nice challenge and I lost before I even started, but the problem is that it gave -100 points and took all my points. :smiling_face_with_tear: Wouldn’t it make more sense for this task to give 0 points after going offline instead of giving -100 points? In other words, the validator who is never offline should be rewarded with +100 points and those who have misfortune and go offline should be deprived of this extra point and get 0 points. If the offline state is repeated, they should continue to get - points according to the number of times. There are many people who have been in the same situation as me and thought the same thing, I hope something will be done about this penalty :pray:
image

5 Likes

I got -20 Points :-s
I agree with you.
This task should give 0 point if you are offline one.

3 Likes

I don’t know how much the team want to penalize validators for being offline…for sure in case of slashing I think that the number of points you will loose will be even worse (take care of your validator keys since double signing is one main slashing activity during node management with Substrate chains using GRANDPA as finality gadget).

As per offline offence, as I can see onchain, every epoch is last about 4 hours so in case of node issue you will have that minimum time in order to resume liveness and send at least an heartbeat or produce a block. If you have already produced a block or sent heartbeat in that epoch, you will have roughly the double amount of time at your disposal.

I think that 4 hours per epoch is not something very stringent or hard to respect for liveness. For example in Kusama an epoch is lasting only 1 hour…in that case it’s a little different, but with a properly alert and monitoring system at your disposal you should be safe too in that case.

PS: take care of your nodes! You were very lucky to be selected from the team (yeah a bit jealous :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: since unfortunately I was not be selected) so don’t ruin your opportunity! :heart:

1 Like

If mainnet doesn’t know if there is a penalty for deducting coins from the validator?

We don’t know if and how Avail Team will apply a slash of tokens to some particular harmful situation in which a validator could be involved…but the existence of slashable event in the protocol should suggest that. Maybe @robin-rrt could tell us more about that.

Consider that a slashable event should be present anytime a validator (or a group of validators) perform a particular action that could be see as dangerous or as an attack to the protocol. This action could be both intentionally or un-intentionally.

For example, in a Substrate based chain that is using GRANDPA as finality gadget, an erroneous GRANDPA keys management from validator operator (for example a duplication of the same key in 2 different machines) could bring to a double signing event in a block, that when recognized by other validators of the network, it is seen as an attack to the network because the finalization process could be broken: an exaggeration to this event is the formation of 2 different blocks at the same height of the chain but both of them with the same amount of signatures from elected validators and so both blocks are valid. This could create a fork and very big issues to the network.
For this reason a double signing event is punished with slashing.

Another event for slashing could be if at least 10% (threshold used in Polkadot) of all active validators go offline at the same time. Normally slashing does not occur for simple offline offence, but in this particular case with >10% of offline offences, a slash is applied.

Also consider that the slashing could be proportional not only based on the type of “attack” but also the amount of entities that are “attacking” the network and the slashable amount of tokens is both in validator self bond and nominators stake (for this reason nominators should apply due diligence in nominating tokens to trusted validators).

Hope all this infos are helpful for people that are approaching right now (and thanks to Avail Project) the Substrate ecosystem :heart:

1 Like

Many validators have minus points because of this point scheme. There is a disproportion between penalty and rewards. It would be great if the team reevaluates

3 Likes

Making this penalty in testnet phase could actually be discouraging to validators, at testnet phase, the focus are actually to stress test,discover errors and glitches,give possible ideas and valuable feedback…It is not a nice idea to implement a penalty during this phase as there could be many factor that can possibly lead to validator going off…
.
MY SUGGESTIONS

  1. To scrap out the penalty
    OR
  2. Instead of giving it -100 to a validator,the validator should be given 0 point for the Noble Warrior Challenge
    Because i can’t make all points just to be paying debts of -100…
2 Likes

I agree with you both options are ok, its really harsh when you lost 200 points suddenly.

1 Like

Honestly.
It really hurts.
I hope the Team do something about it

1 Like

We don’t have any information regarding the future tasks of validators during Clash of Node program. I think the best thing is to wait before making recommendation regarding the point scheme

We know the team will do what is necessary, why should I wait to make a suggestion, what is this forum for? :joy:

We are working on ways to help validators not face this issue. Please be patient, we will deliver any news soon.

2 Likes

I agree everything you said, but there are nothing related with the topic. I just critisize Noble Warrior task penalty. I only get one time offline and this was on first epoch when i become on active set. My node didn’t response keepalive message at the first epoch, after that i got -200 point penalty and my score down too much. I didn’t deserve extra 100 points cuz unfortunately i went offline but also -100 points are too much for the penalty, that’s all I’m saying.

1 Like

I really agree with you friend, at least there must be a comparison of how many plus points and how many minus points for this challenge, if the points calculation is like this, then the validator points will be smaller than other quester points, for example someone only doing an identity quest, then the points will bigger than the validator

1 Like

Hello everybody! :wave:

I join @AstroNodes in its approach to improving the rating criteria for the Noble Warior challenge.

I myself was penalized -100 points for the first day of starting my validator.
I was offline for 5 sessions and active for 222 sessions = an uptime of 97.74% (as of 12/29/2023).
And if the testnet continues a little longer, I would reach an overall uptime of more than 99%, which seems pretty average to me.

I think that the calculation of the penalty should be done based on the %/100 sessions for example.
This will be more representative of the impact on the network compared to other validators.

My feedback is constructive and part of an approach to improving the testnet. :v:

3 Likes

Thank you for the feedback. We are always looking into making the challenges fairer for all.

2 Likes

I agree with your opinion.

1 Like

Hopefully the team will reconsider with updates that may take more days, with the v1.9.0.0 update syncing slowly even though I updated it very early. Thank you