GIP-106: Should GnosisDAO Reinstate Full Rewards for Eligible GnosisVIP Validator Nodes?

Governance GIPs
1

GIP-106: Should GnosisDAO Reinstate Full Rewards for Eligible GnosisVIP Validator Nodes?

  • In Favour
  • Against
0 voters 
GIP: 106
title: Should GnosisDAO Reinstate Full Rewards for eligible GnosisVIP Validator Nodes?
author: @dao
status: Draft
type: Funding
created: 2024-07-05
duration: Once
funding: up to 116.2 GNO (*updated)

Category

Funding - Rewards

Executive Summary:

This proposal aims to revisit and restore the original reward policy for the GnosisVIP event. The event’s initial rules allowed participants to set up validator nodes across 104 countries, with the first 10 nodes in each country being eligible for rewards. The original rules can be reviewed here.

GnosisVIP is getting concluded due to the retirement of Builders Team which launched this event. However, the team that took over the reward distribution decided to cut down the rewards for participants who run more than one validators, citing concerns about farming. The announcement can be found here.

Since there is no restriction in the rules against multiple validator nodes with unique IP addresses, and all those eligible validators contribute equally to geo-diversity in this event, this proposal seeks to ensure participants receive the full rewards as originally promised. This will maintain fairness and trust within the Gnosis community.

Specification

The proposed reward program aims to restore the original terms of the GnosisVIP event:

  • Full Rewards for Eligible Nodes: All validator nodes that meet the criteria (first 10 in their respective countries) should receive their promised rewards according to their validating duration, irrespective of whether they are run by the same entity.

This approach will help the broader Gnosis ecosystem by maintaining predictability and trust within the Gnosis community.

Rationale

The motivation behind this proposal is to uphold fairness and trust within the Gnosis community. The original rules did not prohibit running multiple nodes from different IP addresses, and participants should be rewarded based on those terms. Changing the reward policy retroactively undermines trust and can discourage future participation.

Budget

According to the google sheet in the sunsetting announcement, a total of 16 validators from 10 participants are affected by the reduced rewards.

The expected amount of rewards to make up is as follows:

Withdrawal Address Affected Validators Duration Affected Rewards Notes
…6b20 1 9 Mo 5.25 GNO
…4cd8 1 12 Mo 10.5 GNO
…bc0c 1 12 Mo 10.5 GNO
…02fc 1 12 Mo 10.5 GNO
…9bc1 2 6 Mo 4.8 GNO
…20a0 3 12 Mo 35.7 GNO
…db02 1 9 Mo 5.25 GNO
…ab14 2 12 Mo 23.8 GNO
…4765 1 6 Mo 2.25 GNO
…a88a 3 6 Mo 7.65 GNO *Newly Added
Total 16 116.2 GNO

Edit: The google sheet seems updated after initially drafting this post, updated the numbers to match that.

Conclusion

Restoring the original GnosisVIP rewards policy is essential for maintaining fairness and trust within the community. By honoring the original rules, we can ensure that all participants are treated equitably and avoid reputational risk for the Gnosis ecosystem. This proposal seeks the support of the GnosisDAO community to uphold the integrity of our events and promote a decentralized and robust network.

2 Likes
2

Haven’t followed the details, but more than one node with the same IP address seems to me like playing the game and I wouldn’t give them more as it they had put all their validators in one node cause this doesn’t increase decentralization.

But having more than one node at different locations (and different IP addresses), although they are using the same withdraw address, seems fine for me.

Unfortunately I can’t see these details in the google sheet cause it only mention the withdrawl addresses. Do you have some data regarding the locations of these nodes?

edit: have looked a little deeper in the google sheet and saw some withdrawl addresses are served from different countries, so for these I would favor a full payout (as long as there isn’t a valid reason to assume the location data can also be played).

1 Like
4

I would like to provide information about this program. GnosisVIP was initiated and defined by the Builders team with the aim of encouraging those who run nodes at home, increasing geographical distribution, and, as one of our valued node operators participating in the program stated, “The aim of the program was to help people from developing countries with the initial hardware costs and to keep the node running sustainably for a long time, rather than renting a VM and shutting it down as soon as the rewards dried up.”

After the Builders team retired and handed over the program to the Gnosis Core team, we reviewed the program’s scheme and database and found that they were poorly designed. The rules for rewarding were not clearly established, allowing individuals running multiple nodes or having multiple withdrawal addresses to harm the program. These gaps did not align with the program’s objectives, necessitating the implementation of additional rules.

If we look at what individuals can do in this program:

• One person can run multiple nodes in the same geographic area using different withdrawal addresses.
• One person can run multiple nodes in the same geographic area using the same withdrawal address.
• One person can run multiple nodes in different geographic areas using the same withdrawal address.
• One person can run multiple nodes in different geographic areas using different withdrawal addresses.
• One person can run a single node using their own withdrawal address.

Also, the duration of the program is factored into these strategies. The program’s rewards are calculated based on participation periods of 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months.

After this review, we identified gaps in the program’s initial design that allowed for potential harmful activities, such as running multiple nodes or using multiple withdrawal addresses. Addressing these issues is crucial to ensure fairness and adherence to the program’s objectives.

The new rules aim to curb abuse by limiting the reward allocation for individuals running multiple nodes or using the same IP address. This approach is fair as it prevents disproportionate rewards while still compensating for incurred expenses.

The additional rule we implemented is as follows: considering the objectives of the program, the reward entitlements for individuals running multiple nodes in the same or different countries using the same or different withdrawal addresses, or running multiple nodes but using the same IP address, do not align with the overall rules of the program. However, these individuals have continued their operations and incurred expenses. Our rule is to cover these expenses by providing 25% of the reward for the second node, 15% for the third node, and 5% for the fourth node. Considering the average cloud cost is around $125, we believe this reward compensates their costs. However, full reward allocation is not appropriate given the program’s objectives and out of fairness to participants who run a single node with a single withdrawal address.

Additionally, no restrictions have been placed on individuals with different IP addresses and different withdrawal addresses in terms of rewards, because it is difficult to determine their intentions.

This tiered compensation ensures that individuals do not profit excessively from running multiple nodes, aligning with the program’s intent to support sustainable node operation rather than short-term gains. Also, full reward allocation to multi-node operators would be unfair to those adhering to the program’s original intent.

In summary, by closing loopholes and ensuring fair compensation, the program maintains its integrity and continues to support its primary goal of sustainable and geographically distributed node operation.

6 Likes
5

There are 4 participants (out of 10) with 7 validators (out of 16) have duplicate location from same withdrawal address (exclude the first node of each location)

Withdrawal Address Validators Location Afftected Rewards
…9bc1 2 Argentina 4.8 GNO
…db02 1 Slovakia 5.25 GNO
…ab14 1 Estonia 13.3 GNO
…a88a 3 Romania 7.65 GNO
Total 7 31 GNO

Edit: the forum throws out error codes when trying to update the numbers so I deleted the old post and reply again.

I agree with your opinion that extra nodes with the same IP address should not get paid but nodes at different locations (and different IP addresses) should be paid in full.

The main problem is the team that took over the reward distribution put these two kind of participants together and cut down the rewards for them all. Maybe @armog can share more details about if they have different IP address for each node.

3 Likes
6

I also support this idea.

2 Likes
7

Thank you for providing further context on the GnosisVIP program and its objectives. I appreciate the effort to review and improve the program. However, there are several points that I believe need to be addressed to ensure fairness and maintain trust within the Gnosis community.

Original Rules and Trust:

The GnosisVIP program was initiated with specific rules that participants adhered to in good faith. These rules did not restrict individuals from running multiple nodes with different IP addresses or using different withdrawal addresses. Retroactively changing these rules undermines the trust that participants have in Gnosis initiatives. If the goal is to maintain integrity and fairness, it is crucial to honor the original terms under which participants joined the program.

Contribution to Geographical Distribution:

The argument that running multiple nodes does not align with the program’s objectives overlooks the fact that participants, regardless of the number of nodes, contribute to geographical distribution. Each node, even if run by the same entity, adds to the network’s decentralization and resilience. Penalizing participants for operating multiple nodes contradicts the aim of increasing geographical diversity.

Encouraging Participation:

By adhering to the original rules, we encourage more participants to engage in future Gnosis programs. If participants see that the rules can be changed retroactively, it may deter them from participating in future initiatives. Ensuring that all participants receive the full rewards they were promised fosters a sense of fairness and encourages long-term involvement.

Economic Considerations:

The new tiered compensation system does not take into account that some participants may have invested in multiple sets of hardware to run these nodes, not just rented cloud services. These participants should not be penalized for making a more significant investment based on the original promise of full rewards.

Fairness to All Participants:

The fairness argument should extend to all participants who followed the initial guidelines. While it’s important to prevent abuse, the majority of participants acted in good faith. Implementing retroactive changes punishes these participants unfairly. A fair approach would be to enforce any new rules on future programs while maintaining the original terms for the current one.

Transparency and Predictability:

For the integrity of the Gnosis ecosystem, transparency and predictability are crucial. Participants should be able to rely on the rules set at the start of any program. Retroactively changing the reward structure creates uncertainty and damages the credibility of Gnosis programs.

In conclusion, while I understand the need to address potential abuses, it is imperative to do so without undermining the trust and fairness that participants expect from Gnosis programs. By restoring the original rewards for eligible GnosisVIP validator nodes, we uphold the integrity of our commitments and foster a community built on trust and fairness. I suggest the GnosisDAO to consider the long-term benefits of maintaining these principles and support this proposal to reinstate the full rewards.

8

The reward distribution was as follows:

1.	Single IP, single withdrawal address, and one geographic location: Received full reward.
2.	Different IP, different geographic locations, and  different withdrawal addresses: Received full reward.
3.	Different IP, same geographic locations, different withdrawal addresses: Received full reward.
4.	Different IP, different geographic locations, same withdrawal address: Received proportional reward.
5.	Different IP, same geographic location, same withdrawal address: Received proportional reward.
6.	Same IP, different geographic locations, same withdrawal address: Received proportional reward.
7.	Same IP, same geographic location, different withdrawal addresses: Received proportional reward.
1 Like
9

Thank you for the detailed explanation. However, there are significant inconsistencies in the reward distribution criteria:

Geographical Diversity vs. Withdrawal Address:

Nodes with different IP addresses and different geographic locations should not be penalized for using the same withdrawal address. These participants have genuinely set up nodes in diverse locations, contributing to the network’s geographical diversity. In contrast, nodes with the same IP address and geographic location simply run multiple validators on the same machine, offering no benefit to geographical diversity. Penalizing both scenarios equally is unfair and contradicts the program’s goals.

Technical Feasibility:

The mention of “Same IP, different geographic locations” is technically infeasible, indicating a misunderstanding in the reward assessment process. This raises concerns about the accuracy and fairness of the revised reward rules.

To uphold fairness and trust, GnosisDAO should restore full rewards for nodes that genuinely contribute to geographical diversity, regardless of the withdrawal address used. This approach ensures participants who adhered to the original rules and made significant contributions are justly compensated.

10

Imo, if anything shall be changed it is:

Different IP, different geographic locations, same withdrawal address: Received proportional reward.

especially if these nodes are still online. I didn’t participated in the program at all, but if someone has two residential places in different countries I would appreciate if a node is run on both locations and wouldn’t mind the same withdrawal address.

3 Likes
11

how is this possible?

12

This situation is possible with the use of dynamic IP and VPN/proxy server at the same time. @refri

1 Like
13

However, even with dynamic IPs or VPN/proxy servers, the IP address remains tied to a specific geographic location. IP addresses, whether dynamic or through a VPN, correspond to particular regions. It is not feasible for the same IP to represent different geographic locations simultaneously.

Furthermore, the builders team’s initial reward claim system effectively prevented such masking behaviors. Participants only needed to provide their validator’s pubkey, while the system backend identified the IP address, geographic location, and any repeated IP addresses using pre-snapshot data. This system ensured accurate and fair reward distribution based on actual geographic diversity.

This highlights the need to ensure fair compensation for genuine contributions to geographical diversity, rather than penalizing participants unfairly based on assumptions. @armog

14

I have never participated in this program, even though I operate many GNO validators in various countries. I run a large number of validators through VPNs from different countries than where they are actually located. I don’t understand what prevents those who want to benefit from this program from simply pretending to validate from a specific country. It’s not difficult at all. What am I missing?

15

Hey friends,

Joining the conversation here, As someone in Luxembourg (there’s not many of us, Moien!) felt a bit of a shame not to be included in this program as a large gnosis staker.

If someone squatted my smol country with a VPN I feel that someone is less relevant to the spirit of the program than an actual local actor.

Bonk them up and give the rewards where they belong.

16

The only reason you are not included in this program (yet) is just because you haven’t claimed your seat, but it’s still not too late.
You can get your reward by submitting this form
There are still 8 out of 10 empty seats for your country, and if you are validating on different nodes with different IP addresses, you should get full rewards for each of your nodes according to the original rules if this proposal can get passed.
I didn’t know that possibility for people to run validators behind VPNs before, but since there isn’t any indication of that cheating, we should not presume guilty for those who did not intend to hide their validators with different wallet addresses.

17

Nice!

Our country is very smol and quite traditional, the biggest local bank present Google pay support as a “huge innovation”, would be quite surprised there’s anybody else validating blocks in here :smiley:

If that person is around, I’ll pay them a beer!

18

I really agree with this :100:. I know it is too late but if it can be reconsidered id like it to be.