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.