Switching Validator

Currently, the switching of validator implies to unstake (undelegate) FX which means the loss of 21 days rewards.

From my point of view, the switching of validator is not the same than a pure undelegate.

User who starts undelegate process is taking out the FX from the network. In this case, I can partially understand that the rewards are not distributed during the 21 days unlocking period. I said “partially” because during these 21 days theoretically the coins are summing to the stake until the completion of the unstake process and so, I would see fairer that the rewards are also distributed during the unstaking period.

However, the situation in the switching of validator is different because the user does not want to take out the FX from the network but only changing from one wallet to another.

In my opinion, undelegate and validator switch should be 2 different mechanisms.

I give some reasons to do not penalize users with 21 days loss rewards in the process of validator switching:

  • Initially, user could not properly select validators from team. I mean, at the FX Core starting, we knew that there are team validators named as cities but there is no further information about the team member behind each validator.
    Team always promotes DYOR. Knowing the team member of each city node should have been more adequate to perform a correct selection of the validator. And more taking into account that with the arriving of external nodes, some team nodes could be closed.
    It means, if I have selected for a city node (not for a team member node) and now this node is decided to be closed, I will be punished with 21 day loss rewards even if I could not perform the validator selection properly, with a correct DYOR because Community does not know team members behind the cities. In other blockchains, users always knows the member behind the node.

  • From my point of view, the 21 days loss rewards will not help to external nodes. Once they are activated, it is likely that many users reject the change to these new validators to avoid 21 days loss rewards, even more if we consider that the current validators are likely more trusted than an external validator. In this situation, we are in risk of having a completely centralized network in team nodes.

  • Other important blockchains like ADA or CRO allow the validator switch without rewards punishment for the users. From my point of view, if the idea is to have the best blockchain, at this respect, we should follow the example of other blockchains which do not penalize the users in this process.

I can understand that instantaneous validator switching is not practical/safe for the network. For this reason, my proposal is the following one:

- To implement in the FX Wallet an extra option for validator switch (from validator 1 to validator 2).
- Along this option, the user can move the amount of FX that he/she wants to another validator.
- This process can take 21 days to be completed to maintain the network stable against continuous validator changes.
- During this process, the user will continue receiving FX rewards from validator 1.
- At the end of 21 days, the user will start to receive FX rewards from validator 2.

Please, take into account my proposal and consider the possible implications of penalizing users with 21 days loss rewards from blockchain team centralization point of view.


I don’t understand your need to change Validators that much that this is an issue to you really, the 21 days is for stability and security, making gains in flipping validators is not more important then the security of the eco system! those other chains don’t have a real product working it the real world yet to be concerned about the stability of their validators massive priority difference if you ask me.

1 Like

I can understand that team first priority is security.

It is also important for users, of course, but users can also decide to remain in the current team nodes to avoid 21 days loss rewards because for users, it is also very important the profitability of their investment.

If your point of view is that it is not necessary to change of validator… OK, we will have a centralized blockchain in Pundi X Cloud server… But maybe, that it is not a real blockchain. Decentralization is a must. Team is pushing for many decentralized servicies (Dapps, DEX, etc…) and the nodes are going to be centralized?

From my point of view, team should push for the decentralization of the nodes and having a validator switching process which is penalizing delegators, it is an incorrect starting point to really reach the decentralization of the nodes. It is a disservice for the upcoming external validators.

Think that not all users will be altruistic with the project. Many of them wants to obtain the major profitability as possible and 21 days loss rewards is not in that direction. Take as example of this, the situation with the Defi Farming. It was a team initiative to “train” users in Defi aspects but in the end, the participation was mainly focused on big holders and we cannot reach the 20% stake goal in the first deadline because users also looked strong for their crypto finances and ETH fees were a big obstacle. In that case, user altruism did not served to reach the goal. And now, it can happen the same… but now the goal is more important; it is the real decentralization of the FX Blockchain.

Do you have any inconvenient with my proposal of having 21 days to perform the validator switching and during this period, maintain the distribution of rewards for users? From my point of view, it is a reasonable proposal which maintain stability of the network and it is fair for users.


why are you so persistent no one will move to private nodes, all the new nodes validators need do is match or have a lower commission and people will back other nodes, the fact that a good % of delegates at the moment are going to run nodes so they will undelegated and move to their own nodes this will automatically decentralize the eco system, if you don’t want your funds not earning for 21 days don’t undelegate it all in one go, do it in stages, People who came to back others will move to back whom they came to back, the system will be decentralised but not in 5 mins

I think you both have good points.
It will all depend on what happens when public validators start.

Will team validators stop?
Will they move over to be a public validator?
Will they higher their commission rate?

I understand the proposal of @Cryptogon13 for penalty free validator swapping.
If i had plans to be a validator myself i would have had the same thought, it feels like starting with a disadvantage, public-team 0-1

But on the other hand i think that it’s not all that bad that team secured the netwerk for a big part already, thats a good thing and that’s their job and merit for all the hard work and effort.

Moreover i dont think delegators will swap from validators to much.
But that’s a guess.

I for one have made up my mind about delegating and made my choise.
If i can switch penalty free, that would be lucky, if not…to bad.
Then i will do it in parts.

Long story short…we will see what happens.
For that i agree with @LKYBOB it won’t be overnight, but am sure decentralisation wiil be a fact.


Btw…this thread seems to be in wrong category?

From my humble opinion, it is in the correct category because my initial post is the proposal of implementing a validator switch without punishing the user, even if it takes 21 days in being completed; and this proposal is to be taken into account by team developers, I guess.

Regarding the validator switching by stages, we would remain with the same problem. At the end, if you want to change 1000 FX, you will lose 21 days of rewards associated to those 1000 FX even if you perform it in 10 stages for example. The losses will be the same (for a constant APY along time, of course).

At the end, time will give reason to some of us, but at least, I see very clear that no many users will decide to change of validator if they lose 21 days rewards. It is not a negligible loss. And as I said, the Defi Farming has demonstrated us that no many altruistic users opt for pushing for the project at the expense of their own crypto profit.

Sincerely, I cannot understand why are you opposite to have a transition between validators with no losses for the user. I am not proposing an instantaneous switch that clearly seems me unstable for the network; my proposal is only to maintain the normal distribution of rewards during the validator switch period.

What is the concern that you found on my proposal?


Proposals are for the application of the funds of application development and such, this is not a proposal for that section, and again as a future validator I don’t see the reason to jeopardize the security for a delegators possible single delegation move most people won’t probably move more then a few times in their hole time delegating most returns of the validating nodes will be relative to most peoples small delegations, the team will want the eco system to be decentralized so they will likely create incentive’s to move to support other validators, I’m not even sure the team validators are permeant validators,

1 Like

You are to much right. Decentrelized is freedom. Team need to do something for that.

1 Like

You bring up a valid point. Shifting validators doesn’t get you anything now, but transitioning to new public nodes will be painful if it means missing out on 21 days of rewards.

@LKYBOB if the APR stabilizes around 40%, it means the staker is potentially missing out on 2.31% rewards. Let’s say FX bumps up the fee to 5% and public nodes charge 3%, even then the break even point is almost a year. And this is for someone whose intention is to stay staked and make the network secure.

The team should reward stakers for the 21 days, but charge a set amount of fee every time someone undelegates to discourage unnecessary node shifting.

1 Like

Yes you are correct, should be in suggestions catagory, this is for egf proposals

it’s not about how much you will loose while changing delegations, we got to stake for 10 weeks before and because the team went ahead to start main net with team nodes you got months ahead of earning to now you would not of had anyway, the security hazards of the system being taken oven and every body looses every thing because all the people delegating $100 worth of coin don’t want to not earn $5 dollars worth over 21 days once. I still think Billions worth of value is more important than your selfish need to not loose a few coins, after all delegates are pawns in the system they are not the control of the system, as I have said before if the team can create a no loss situation for you with out endangering the eco system I’m all for it But if there is any doubt don’t. we have had this chat already and the team did not engage with it, tells me it’s not in consideration

Couldn’t they allow us to, just for this one time, transfer from the company hosted validator to a public validator, without penalty. I would like to clarify that this would only be for transferring to a different validator ONE time and not actually undelegating; therefore, it shouldn’t affect the security of the blockchain.

1 Like

who knows people always jumping the gun before we get to a point, the team will read this stuff and have it in consideration they do listen to what’s said, just have to wait and see

Very ignorant of you to make that statement. I am in a position where I am earning significant amount of coins everyday and loosing 21 days of staking will add up. And I am not even close to being considered a big holder. So there are far bigger players out there who will loose good amount of change.

Regardless , $5 for someone who has $100 are equal to $5000 for someone with $100,000. So you can’t disregard those people. They are the mass majority we need for adoption and most of LATAM fall in this bracket.

FX needs to shift to public nodes & team should address this drawback.

I’m not the one being ignorant, I’ve already stated twice I support this if it can be done without jeopardizing the network, but your undelegation loss is not a priority over the security of the network worth many millions more; capish