# Addressing Misleading Practices by Melea Validator: Proposed Penalties and Community Actions **URL:** \ **Category:** Proposal Ideas\ **Created:** [November 11, 2024, 3:10pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/addressing-misleading-practices-by-melea-validator-proposed-penalties-and-community-actions/14746 "2024-11-11T15:10:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 7
**Author:** ![Govmos](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/govmos/32/5806_2.png) [@Govmos](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/Govmos)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2024, 10:08am UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/addressing-misleading-practices-by-melea-validator-proposed-penalties-and-community-actions/14746/7 "2024-11-12T10:08:36Z")
We appreciate the proactive approach taken to move forward with **concrete actions** following the previous discussion phase in this forum (link to the topic [here](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/urgent-concern-melea-validators-misleading-0-commission-claim/14685)). To provide a TL;DR on the challenges highlighted in the earlier discussion, our perspective leaned toward the necessity of a broader governance reform, ideally leading to a **constitution for the Hub**. Such a document would establish guidelines for validator naming practices and outline enforceable actions against non-compliant entities. We also find Melea’s actions to be problematic and believe they should not go unaddressed. While creating this constitution would require significant coordination and time, **we feel that immediate, actionable steps should also be proposed to the community to define acceptable practices for validator naming**. These initial actions could serve as the foundation for a future governance framework constitution. ## Proposed Rules: To clarify our position on this matter, we propose the following principles to define an “acceptable range” for validator naming: - Validators should use the **ASCII character set exclusively** (non-standard symbols and special characters would be non-compliant). - Validator names **should not be used for marketing purposes** , such as promoting external content, links, or incentives aimed at attracting delegators. - **Financial incentives should not be advertised** through validator names (stakedrops, airdrops, fee rebates, lotteries, etc.) . Validators are welcome to promote these through other channels, such as social media or websites, but not through the validator name itself. ## Proposed Sanctions: Violations of these rules should come with penalties. We aim to refine our suggestions based on the author’s initial post, as follows: > [@AtlasStaking](#): > > **1. Temporary Suspension from Voting on Network Proposals:** We find this solution technically challenging, as it would likely require updates to the governance module, adding further dependencies. Therefore, we suggest passing on this option. > [@AtlasStaking](#): > > **Financial Penalty: 100% Tax on Staking Rewards:** We support imposing financial penalties on non-compliant validators but feel that an on-chain tax would be complex to implement. Instead, we propose utilizing “jail-time” as a primary enforcement mechanism. Jail-time is an existing tool designed for handling governance-related violations and would not require additional module updates. ### Proposed Approach: 1. Misbehaving validators should receive a formal notice via a forum post, allowing 14 days for them to respond and present a defense. 2. After this period, an on-chain proposal can be submitted, detailing the broken rules, proposed penalty, and linking to the forum discussion. 3. Repeated infractions should incur increased jail-time, with extreme cases potentially resulting in tombstoning (permanent jail-time). 4. If a validator attempts to evade penalties by spinning up a new entity, stake slashing could apply to enforce financial consequences. For more details on jail-time, please refer to the Cosmos documentation: [https://docs.cosmos.network/v0.46/modules/slashing/](https://docs.cosmos.network/v0.46/modules/slashing/) * * * > _Regarding complementary proposals, such as a validator transparency index or a delegator education campaign, we view these as supportive measures. However, we emphasize that jail-time, paired with a clear and fair set of rules, is the optimal approach._ * * * ## Proposed Plan: We propose splitting this initiative into two votes: the first to define the rules, followed by a second to enforce penalties on non-compliant validators. After a 14-day forum post listing non-compliant actors, validators would have sufficient time to modify their names to comply. For the specific case of Melea, whose long-term non-compliance is evident, we recommend a separate vote to apply a retroactive penalty. This could involve a set jail-time period, after which Melea would be permitted to rejoin consensus if they comply with the rules. Repeated violations would lead to progressively longer jail-time, culminating in tombstoning if they continue to disregard compliance. * * * Thank you for reading. Govmos. [![pro-delegators-sign](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/uploads/cosmos1/original/2X/3/3d138289b87945115dfe59a6604e139bf36aeb94.png)](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/pro-delegators-validator-profile/12956) --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/addressing-misleading-practices-by-melea-validator-proposed-penalties-and-community-actions/14746)._