Censure blockpower and dforce for unsafe practices & slot abuse

Context: a censure is a formal criticism.

This is not a move to slash either validator. This formal criticism should help the redelegation process along, or encourage the delegator behind both nodes to maybe just do one, instead of two.

Here’s proof of the unsafe practices:

Personally, I agree with Mr. Larry Engineer:

Validators should not vote for two validators from a single wallet. This increases the risk to the cosmos hub and clearly shows that these two validators represent one single entity.

vote YES to censure blockpower and dforce for unsafe practices and slot abuse
vote NO to move to not censure blockpower and dforce
vote ABSTAIN to express no opinion on the matter


Validators should not vote for two validators from a single wallet.

One validator should not even vote for two validators, even if it is done from two wallets (but it makes it much harder to recognize that way). Ideally 1 spot = 1 validator = 1 party operating it.

1 Like

Hey @lexa thank you for adding the context to both of these posts. It has improved them.

1 Like

Blockpower’s Response Regarding Notional’s Proposal - Hub Proposals / Proposal Ideas - Cosmos Hub Forum


This is not a proposal, it’s just an opinion. There’s a place for public discussion of validator practices, but governance is not that place. I would suggest that you close this and reopen it in the Discussion section. If this was an on chain proposal I would consider it spam.

This is prop 99 / 100

Was on the forum for a week before hitting the chain.

Unfortunately having public discussions of validator stuff gets people triggered, and carries no gravity.

An opinion formally expressed by governance, and voted on, becomes the official opinion of the hub and that’s the intention here.

To be clear, I have an agenda. The agenda is to raise standards.