Overview

One of the main features offered by the THORChain ecosystem lies in the node operators. Qualified operators who do not have enough $RUNE to run a node by themselves can use the bonus provider function to obtain bonuses from other $RUNE holders. In fact, they can define up to 6 THOR addresses as bonus providers. These addresses will be able to link and unlink to the node, and earn rewards based on the amount of bonuses they contribute.

The minimum $RUNE required to enter as a THORNode is currently set at 300K although this amount may increase depending on the bonus competition. Between the technical notions required to manage a Validator and this 300K $RUNE needed, the number of Node Operators securing THORChain is limited.

At first glance it might seem Pooled Validators contradict the economic security model of THORChain. With Pooled Validators it is possible for the Node Operator to individually put up less bond than the value of the assets that the node secures. However this nuance only exists within the relationship between the Node Operator and the Bond Providers. The Network only considers the THORNode as single entity thus the economic model is intact.

Methodology

The idea of this dashboard is to analyze the performance of pooled vs classic validators re: slashes and slash points.

The metrics analyzed are:

• Weekly slashes and distribution by type of validators
• Weekly slashes points and distribution by type of validators
• Validator metrics

Looking at the charts we can see how at the first point, the number of slashed increased over time. In the first image, we can see the different numbers by type of validator: classic vs pooled. The distribution of slashes was around 20% for pooled validators and around 80% per classic validators. However, the pooled validators percentage increase during the last days over 30%.

In case of the slashed points, it varies day by day. The percentage of slashed points has been at around 20% for pooled valdiators again. But it decreased a little bit to 15% since January 2022. We can see how the cumulative numbers are at around 3M points slashed. 0.5M from pooled validators and the rest for classic validators.

If we consider each validator, we can see how the major of them are classic validators, however it seems that the pooled validators have higher slashes. On the other hand, the slashed points the numbers seems to have in a similar ranges for the two type of validators.

The final image shows the points slashed per each validator represented in a bubbles which size and color show the number of slashes. Here we can see how these two metrics are not correlated. Basically, we can see how the top validators in number of slashed points have low number of slashed. Contrary, there are some medium validators in terms of slashed points that have higher slashes.

Key points

• The distribution of slashes are now in favour of pooled nodes. The percentage share of slashes has been swapped and are now around 80% for pooled validators and around 20% per classic validators. Over the past year, the pooled validators percentage increased considerably.
• The percentage of slashed points also made a change and from 20% from Pooled nodes has changed to 50%.
• Right now, there are a similar number of classic and pooled validators, however it seems that the pooled validators have higher slashes.
• The points slashed and the number of slashes are not correlated.