When optimistic slashing was introduced, my understanding was that the reason to gov gate slashing was to prevent false positives (consumer chains triggering slashes through code) and protect the Hub. It seems like the definition of false positive is shifting also to include real equivocation that wasn’t intended to be malicious.
This seems reasonable, especially if the framing is that these are training wheels to allow for ICS to be live in production (I could see validators not being willing to run ICS chains without this). Or maybe optimistic slashing is just better because validators mostly double-sign on accident, and other chains should add it.
I do have some questions about this from the consumer chain POV
- Are these just training wheels? Or will optimistic slashing also be added to the Hub?
- Will governance be able to accurately judge whether future double signs are accidental?
- Does this change the incentive structure for validators to double-sign?