Chilling of inactive STSOs

ftso group test
#43

We support this proposal.

2 Likes
#44

We fully support this proposal.
All providers will face technical issues from time to time but it is every FTSOā€™s duty to keep the network up to date with it. Any provider that stops submitting prices and fails to notify the network and other providers should be removed from the system in our view.

3 Likes
#45

We support this proposal, I think all chains have uptime requirement to be in active set.

3 Likes
#46

Makes sense to open up the whitelist slots

4 Likes
#47

I agree to remove the inactive ones.

3 Likes
#48

I support this proposal.

1 Like
#49

We support this proposal as well

1 Like
#50

We support this proposal.

1 Like
#51

Proposal to chill
FTSO IT 0x6ff5947ef89754682ad765b79c11f33452756d0b

Fat Cats 0x7776fc062ae648466958a28b3001f6a4517a147c

Oracle Swap 0x4e6c61d1dc945eebd3fc9a6251bd8b8b5ebd5637

stoadz ftso (original) 0x879fb0b354733674fd403286ebb2eb17ef97e5ae

Will go live on chain tomorrow in roughly 24 hours, 12:00 noon CST.

8 Likes
#52

FlareFTSO supports this proposal based on the reasoning provided for their inactivity.

1 Like
#53

Short delay on proposalā€¦ please hold

1 Like
#54

Voting on all 4 inactive providers is now live. Go vote.

1 Like
#55

Aureus Ox supports the chilling of inactive providers.

#56

I support chilling 0x777, 0x4e6 and 0x879 for two reasons:
Their ties with collusion rings, thats a nono
And if I recall correctly, some of those addresses have their private keys compromised so thatā€™s a risk that would be better avoided

#57

However, Iā€™m not in favour of chilling FTSO IT, I donā€™t agree that an address should be banned just for being inactive, even if the owners agree. Itā€™s not a precedent Iā€™d like to set on the network, removing parties more or less arbitrarily.

#58

This power we have should be used very responsibly, and if we get lax on ourselves we could be burning books and flying red and black flags before we even realize it.
So LightFTSO will be voting yea on 3 out of the 4 proposals, nay on chilling FTSO IT

#59

I think thatā€™s a reasonable response and I do agree that we need to be cautious on what sort of precedent we set as we move forward with proposals. At some point there does need to be a way to remove whitelisted TSOs that have votes keeping them in the top 100 but have not submitted for months. As of right now, the committee is the only process available to do that.

1 Like
#60

Also, even though IT is not accused of any bad behavior or intentional wrongdoing the votes that remain delegated to that provider and the fact that itā€™s preventing other potential providers from submitting data is bad for the network.

1 Like
#61

And lastly, the committee will be active until staking and slashing is enacted. When that happens surly one of the punishable aspects of that would be punishing extended periods of inactivity. The roll of the committee is to punish behaviors that donā€™t have a mechanism of punishment yet. In my opinion itā€™s reasonable to vote to chill a provider for something that will eventually be punished via slashing, especially when the owner of that provider supports the proposal.

2 Likes
#62

Love the discourse (hehe) Lightā€¦ on all proposals moving forward, letā€™s please try to get these in on a more timely manner so we can delay the vote (we all learning) ā€“ but appreciate the opinion/dialogue. Maybe we should let these simmer for a week or so if opposed.