Skip to main content

Validator Charter

Document type: Policy
Doc ID: POL-VALIDATORS
Status: Final v0.1
Release date: December 21, 2025
Author: Nicolas Turcotte, Founder
Source repo: dcorps-docs-public (docs/policy/POL-VALIDATORS.md)
Last updated: 2025-12-24

Scope: Expectations, responsibilities, and consequences for validators participating in the dCorps Hub.

1. Eligibility and onboarding

Validators are key to the security and neutrality of the Hub. Operators should:

  • demonstrate technical competence in running Cosmos-style validator nodes;
  • maintain reliable infrastructure and monitoring;
  • disclose any significant conflicts of interest or affiliations.

Onboarding may include:

  • basic due diligence by the community or foundation;
  • adherence to published best-practice guides;
  • participation in testnets or dry-run upgrades before mainnet operations.

This policy does not create a permissioned validator set; eligibility is primarily economic and technical, but expectations are documented to align behavior.

2. Operational expectations

Validators should:

  • maintain high uptime and low missed-block rates;
  • keep nodes patched and up to date with agreed upgrade schedules;
  • secure keys with appropriate hardware and operational controls;
  • monitor performance, latency, and connectivity continuously.

Validators must:

  • follow network upgrade instructions and timelines;
  • participate in rehearsals or simulations when requested for major upgrades;
  • notify the community promptly in case of operational incidents.

3. Misbehavior and penalties

Misbehavior includes, but is not limited to:

  • double-signing blocks;
  • extended downtime or absenteeism;
  • participating in censorship or manipulation of transactions;
  • colluding to undermine governance decisions or protocol rules.

Consequences may include:

  • automatic slashing and jailing at the protocol level;
  • reputational impact and potential removal from any curated validator lists;
  • exclusion from future programs or delegations managed by the foundation or ecosystem funds.

Slashing rules and thresholds are defined technically in the staking module and economically in SPEC-PARAMS.md; this policy serves as a human-readable summary of expectations.

4. Communication and coordination

Validators should:

  • participate in designated communication channels (e.g. mailing lists, chat, forums);
  • respond promptly to critical security and upgrade announcements;
  • coordinate in good faith during incidents and upgrades.

Coordinated communication:

  • respects security disclosure norms (see BUG-BOUNTY.md and INCIDENT-RESPONSE.md);
  • avoids undue centralization or backroom decision-making;
  • is logged or summarized publicly when it materially affects network operations.

5. Transparency and monitoring

Validators are encouraged to:

  • publish basic profiles (infrastructure, policies, fees, contact details);
  • disclose commission rates and any major changes clearly;
  • provide a high-level summary of their security posture (without exposing sensitive details).

Community members, explorers, and indexers may:

  • monitor validator performance and behavior;
  • surface metrics and flags (e.g. frequent downtime, governance participation);
  • provide reputational signals while remaining clear that delegators make their own decisions.

6. Enforcement approach

Validator accountability is enforced through:

  • protocol-level slashing and jailing where applicable;
  • governance actions for removal from curated or foundation-backed validator lists;
  • public incident disclosures and performance reporting.

This policy does not create a permissioned validator set. Enforcement is transparent and must align with on-chain governance decisions.