Abstract This proposal aims to whitelist a Nova validator operated by Infura, enhancing network security and reliability by leveraging their robust infrastructure and expertise.
Motivation To ensure the Arbitrum Nova network benefits from highly reliable and trusted validators, we propose adding Infura to the whitelist. Their proven track record in blockchain infrastructure will bolster the network’s performance and security.
Rationale Infura’s validator has been running successfully for a while, participating in the Data Availability Committee (DAC), but was not previously whitelisted. This oversight was discovered during testing. Whitelisting this validator will increase the number of active validators on Nova, enhancing overall security and reliability. Their infrastructure and operational expertise will significantly contribute to the stability and reliability of the Arbitrum Nova network.
Specifications
Conclusion By whitelisting the Infura Nova validator, we enhance the network’s robustness and reliability, supporting Arbitrum’s long-term growth and stability.
Abstract This proposal aims to whitelist a Nova validator operated by Infura, enhancing network security and reliability by leveraging their robust infrastructure and expertise.
Motivation To ensure the Arbitrum Nova network benefits from highly reliable and trusted validators, we propose adding Infura to the whitelist. Their proven track record in blockchain infrastructure will bolster the network’s performance and security.
Rationale Infura’s validator has been running successfully for a while, participating in the Data Availability Committee (DAC), but was not previously whitelisted. This oversight was discovered during testing. Whitelisting this validator will increase the number of active validators on Nova, enhancing overall security and reliability. Their infrastructure and operational expertise will significantly contribute to the stability and reliability of the Arbitrum Nova network.
Specifications
Conclusion By whitelisting the Infura Nova validator, we enhance the network’s robustness and reliability, supporting Arbitrum’s long-term growth and stability.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/36
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/36
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/35?u=tane
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/33
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/29?u=castlecapital
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-37: https://eventhorizon.vote/vote/closed/ehARB-37
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-37: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-37
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/32?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/30?u=mcfly
Infura is a well known infra provider in the ecosystem, voting for
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/25?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/23?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/24?u=tekr0x.eth
It is helpful for the network
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/22?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/21?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/20?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/19?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/16?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/12?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/13?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/11?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/35?u=tane
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/33
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/29?u=castlecapital
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-37: https://eventhorizon.vote/vote/closed/ehARB-37
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-37: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-37
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/32?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/30?u=mcfly
Infura is a well known infra provider in the ecosystem, voting for
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/25?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/23?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/24?u=tekr0x.eth
It is helpful for the network
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/22?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/21?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/20?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/19?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/16?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/12?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/13?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/11?u=larva
Hey everyone, just flagging that this AIP was incorrectly labeled initially (has been changed) on the forum post and on Snapshot as a Non-Constitutional AIP, but this change in fact would require a Constitutional AIP.
As per the ArbitrumDAO constitution, this falls under an action that requires "chain owner" (aka the DAO) permission on Arbitrum Nova.
Hey everyone, just flagging that this AIP was incorrectly labeled initially (has been changed) on the forum post and on Snapshot as a Non-Constitutional AIP, but this change in fact would require a Constitutional AIP.
As per the ArbitrumDAO constitution, this falls under an action that requires "chain owner" (aka the DAO) permission on Arbitrum Nova.
When this proposal progresses to an onchain vote on Tally, it will be labeled correctly as a Constitutional AIP.
Hey everyone, just flagging that this AIP was incorrectly labeled initially (has been changed) on the forum post and on Snapshot as a Non-Constitutional AIP, but this change in fact would require a Constitutional AIP.
As per the ArbitrumDAO constitution, this falls under an action that requires "chain owner" (aka the DAO) permission on Arbitrum Nova.
Hey everyone, just flagging that this AIP was incorrectly labeled initially (has been changed) on the forum post and on Snapshot as a Non-Constitutional AIP, but this change in fact would require a Constitutional AIP.
As per the ArbitrumDAO constitution, this falls under an action that requires "chain owner" (aka the DAO) permission on Arbitrum Nova.
When this proposal progresses to an onchain vote on Tally, it will be labeled correctly as a Constitutional AIP.
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the [Non-Constitutional] Whitelist Infura Nova Validator off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1390
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the [Non-Constitutional] Whitelist Infura Nova Validator off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1390
Hey @BlockworksResearch , so this was a simple oversight on our part and they were not registered, despite them running a validator for Nova all this time.
Here's a status page - https://status.infura.io/
Hey @BlockworksResearch , so this was a simple oversight on our part and they were not registered, despite them running a validator for Nova all this time.
Here's a status page - https://status.infura.io/
Hey everyone, we want to resurface this proposal since it has been flying under the radar for quite some time, and are looking to progress this into snapshot this Thursday (26th Sept 2024).
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to comment here and we will address them asap! Thank you.
Hey everyone, we want to resurface this proposal since it has been flying under the radar for quite some time, and are looking to progress this into snapshot this Thursday (26th Sept 2024).
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to comment here and we will address them asap! Thank you.
I have voted FOR in Tally. This is my rationale, same as before:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/41?u=olimpio
I have voted FOR in Tally. This is my rationale, same as before:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-whitelist-infura-nova-validator/25083/41?u=olimpio
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We voted For this proposal—no reason not to support this since Infura has been supporting Arbitrum for a long time, is a well-known infra provider, and has great reliability as per their uptime stat.
I have voted in favour in the Snapshot temp check. It was not whitelisted before because of an oversight with the FND, this is a formality and they have been a validator a long time.
DAOplomats voted in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
This was an easy vote as Infura is trustworthy, has the expertise, and has been carrying out validations for a while now.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Whitelist Infura Nova Validator
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/27
=== COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: ===
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Whitelist Infura Nova Validator
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/27
=== COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: ===
Infura’s long-standing role as a trusted infrastructure provider with a proven track record of reliability and exceptional uptime makes whitelisting them as a Nova validator a logical and beneficial step. Their contribution to the Data Availability Committee (DAC) reinforces their capability to enhance the Arbitrum ecosystem’s stability and security. Additionally, as echoed by other community members, establishing a transparent and structured onboarding process for future validators would strengthen accountability and consistency.
In line with the feedback from various delegates, I also see value in considering diversification of validators in the future to promote decentralization. A clearly defined set of criteria for future applicants would help streamline decisions and maintain high standards for validator onboarding.
Voted FOR. Infura has been in crypto for quite a long time and therefor some reputation. Also agree that these kind of WL don't need too much discussion. Its more a proposal to acknowledge a few validator.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Given Infura's strong reputation within the crypto ecosystem and the validator's track record of excellent uptime, we see this proposal as an easy yes.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We voted For this proposal—no reason not to support this since Infura has been supporting Arbitrum for a long time, is a well-known infra provider, and has great reliability as per their uptime stat.
I have voted in favour in the Snapshot temp check. It was not whitelisted before because of an oversight with the FND, this is a formality and they have been a validator a long time.
DAOplomats voted in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
This was an easy vote as Infura is trustworthy, has the expertise, and has been carrying out validations for a while now.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Whitelist Infura Nova Validator
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/27
=== COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: ===
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Whitelist Infura Nova Validator
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/27
=== COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: ===
Infura’s long-standing role as a trusted infrastructure provider with a proven track record of reliability and exceptional uptime makes whitelisting them as a Nova validator a logical and beneficial step. Their contribution to the Data Availability Committee (DAC) reinforces their capability to enhance the Arbitrum ecosystem’s stability and security. Additionally, as echoed by other community members, establishing a transparent and structured onboarding process for future validators would strengthen accountability and consistency.
In line with the feedback from various delegates, I also see value in considering diversification of validators in the future to promote decentralization. A clearly defined set of criteria for future applicants would help streamline decisions and maintain high standards for validator onboarding.
Voted FOR. Infura has been in crypto for quite a long time and therefor some reputation. Also agree that these kind of WL don't need too much discussion. Its more a proposal to acknowledge a few validator.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Given Infura's strong reputation within the crypto ecosystem and the validator's track record of excellent uptime, we see this proposal as an easy yes.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Given Infura's strong reputation within the crypto ecosystem and the validator's track record of excellent uptime, we see this proposal as an easy yes.
We also share the sentiment expressed by other delegates regarding whether the DAO will need to whitelist additional validators in the future or if this is a one-time consideration.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Given Infura's strong reputation within the crypto ecosystem and the validator's track record of excellent uptime, we see this proposal as an easy yes.
We also share the sentiment expressed by other delegates regarding whether the DAO will need to whitelist additional validators in the future or if this is a one-time consideration.
Voting FOR,
I have seen Infura's work with not only protocols I have contributed to but also in the wider ecosystem. They are one of the leaders in the space and deserve to have a chance to prove that they can serve the ecosystem well as a validator.
Voting FOR,
I have seen Infura's work with not only protocols I have contributed to but also in the wider ecosystem. They are one of the leaders in the space and deserve to have a chance to prove that they can serve the ecosystem well as a validator.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
Infura has been running a validator for a long time with exceptional uptime and we fully support whitelisting them.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
Infura has been running a validator for a long time with exceptional uptime and we fully support whitelisting them.
I'm voting in favor as this snapshot vote was mainly made in order to follow the "formal" procedure, but yes, it's evident to me how Nova validator should be whitelisted. Its performance clearly shows good results and reliability. I fully support this proposal!
I'm voting in favor as this snapshot vote was mainly made in order to follow the "formal" procedure, but yes, it's evident to me how Nova validator should be whitelisted. Its performance clearly shows good results and reliability. I fully support this proposal!
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain Team voted FOR this proposal. Echo the concerns of other delegates - hope that this oversight can be addressed and fixed through additional processes.
I will be voting "For" whitelisting Infura. In agreement with what others said - infura has a long history of providing reliable services.
Simple vote, but I'd echo what a few others have brought up. this is something that may need a more clear process for future applicants. I don't think it needs to be overly complicated, but just a little more structured then posting on a delegate form.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We consider this as a simple oversight during the process and it's natural to allow the provider with great track record to properly operate the validator as a Nova validator.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We consider this as a simple oversight during the process and it's natural to allow the provider with great track record to properly operate the validator as a Nova validator.
We have the same question, though. It's contradicting to the statement Infura’s validator has been running successfully for a while, participating in the Data Availability Committee (DAC) ? The status page doesn't show the Nova status either, nor it's not that indication of Infura running a Nova validator?
We’re supporting this proposal because infura has a strong track record as a trusted infrastructure provider, consistently delivering 99.6% uptime. They've also been supporting the network behind the scenes for years.
We are voting in favor of this proposal. Infura has demonstrated to be a trusted provider, so let’s solve this oversight for Nova's benefit.
Voted: Whitelist Infura Validator
Great to see the community rallying behind this decision. Infura’s strong track record in blockchain infrastructure gives us confidence that they’ll enhance the stability and reliability of the network.
Voted to Whitelist Infura Validator at the temp check stage, given that Infura is already running validators successfully.
I voted FOR.
However, I must say that it lacked context and support documentation from the OP (So all delegates needed to go after it to properly vote).
We're voting For this proposal
Voted For: The proposal seems solid and straightforward. When researching Infura company I found out they have a very positive reputation. I see no reason not to support this proposal.
There is no doubt that whitelisting the Infura Nova validator can enhance the network's robustness and reliability and support Arbitrum's long-term growth and stability.
I fully support this proposal.
Abstract This proposal aims to whitelist a Nova validator operated by Infura, enhancing network security and reliability by leveraging their robust infrastructure and expertise.
We're voting FOR whitelisting Infura's Nova validator. It's a solid move to boost network security and stability. Infura's already proven themselves in the Data Availability Committee, so this feels like a natural next step.
That said, we're with the community on needing a clearer process for onboarding validators. It'd be great to see some transparent criteria and performance metrics down the line. This could help prevent oversights and keep everyone in the loop.
We're voting FOR whitelisting Infura's Nova validator. It's a solid move to boost network security and stability. Infura's already proven themselves in the Data Availability Committee, so this feels like a natural next step.
That said, we're with the community on needing a clearer process for onboarding validators. It'd be great to see some transparent criteria and performance metrics down the line. This could help prevent oversights and keep everyone in the loop.
As we grow, let's keep an eye on diversifying our validator pool. This is a good start, but there's room to push for more decentralization as we move forward.
In favor of the proposal: Rationale: The motivation for this proposal is to ensure that the network benefits from a highly reliable validator and that Infura's proven track record will significantly improve the performance of the network. The validator has previously operated effectively in the Data Availability Council, but was found not to be whitelisted during testing. Its inclusion will enhance the overall security and stability of the Nova network and contribute to the long-term growth of Arbitrum. As infura is outside my area of expertise, I have no other suggestions.
We are in strong support of whitelisting Infura’s validator as they have been a reliable infrastructure provider for years and has proven its capability through its participation in the Data Availability Committee (DAC).
Overall, we think the oversight highlights the need for a more formalized and transparent process for whitelisting validators. It would be beneficial to establish clear criteria and a step-by-step procedure to avoid confusion situations in the future. A public dashboard showing validator performance and uptime metrics could also be useful for ongoing accountability.
We are in strong support of whitelisting Infura’s validator as they have been a reliable infrastructure provider for years and has proven its capability through its participation in the Data Availability Committee (DAC).
Overall, we think the oversight highlights the need for a more formalized and transparent process for whitelisting validators. It would be beneficial to establish clear criteria and a step-by-step procedure to avoid confusion situations in the future. A public dashboard showing validator performance and uptime metrics could also be useful for ongoing accountability.
Just wondering now, are there any risks of over-reliance on a single infrastructure provider, especially given their dominance in the space? It might be worth exploring a diversification strategy for validators to avoid potential centralization risks in the future. Finally, will there be periodic reviews or performance checks for whitelisted validators to ensure they continue to meet the necessary standards?
Overall, nonetheless, still in strong support.
Infura is in my knowledge one of the most reliable provider out there, and also well known in the industry. While this is just a formality, obviously needs to be rectified so we can register them. Voting for.
Not sure if could be maybe a situation in which we also want to review how we handle onboarding/offboarding of infra provider, to avoid this happening again in future (but maybe as @cliffton.eth said was just an oversight and nothing more)
I'm supporting this proposal on Snapshot. I personally use Infura a lot as an RPC provider in various chains and their strong track record in the ecosystem as an infrastructure provider is well known. As mentioned in the proposal, it has already been running successfully for a while participating in the DAC, so it seems straightforward to continue the process and whitelist them.
I am FOR increasing the number of validators - this is positive for Arbitrum Nova. However, there are still a couple of questions:
You have written a lot about what good Arbitrum will receive and I completely agree with this. But you have not written anything about why you need validation. I assume to organize access to data, because you are one of the most widespread RPS providers? Or do you already have access to this data as a DAC participant?
I am FOR increasing the number of validators - this is positive for Arbitrum Nova. However, there are still a couple of questions:
You have written a lot about what good Arbitrum will receive and I completely agree with this. But you have not written anything about why you need validation. I assume to organize access to data, because you are one of the most widespread RPS providers? Or do you already have access to this data as a DAC participant?
By the way, there is a list of the committee on the Arbitrum website and Infura is not there.
voting Whitelist Infura Validator because I've always had a hard time trusting self-labelled alchemists to be honest =)
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain Team voted FOR this proposal. Echo the concerns of other delegates - hope that this oversight can be addressed and fixed through additional processes.
I will be voting "For" whitelisting Infura. In agreement with what others said - infura has a long history of providing reliable services.
Simple vote, but I'd echo what a few others have brought up. this is something that may need a more clear process for future applicants. I don't think it needs to be overly complicated, but just a little more structured then posting on a delegate form.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We consider this as a simple oversight during the process and it's natural to allow the provider with great track record to properly operate the validator as a Nova validator.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We consider this as a simple oversight during the process and it's natural to allow the provider with great track record to properly operate the validator as a Nova validator.
We have the same question, though. It's contradicting to the statement Infura’s validator has been running successfully for a while, participating in the Data Availability Committee (DAC) ? The status page doesn't show the Nova status either, nor it's not that indication of Infura running a Nova validator?
We’re supporting this proposal because infura has a strong track record as a trusted infrastructure provider, consistently delivering 99.6% uptime. They've also been supporting the network behind the scenes for years.
We are voting in favor of this proposal. Infura has demonstrated to be a trusted provider, so let’s solve this oversight for Nova's benefit.
Voted: Whitelist Infura Validator
Great to see the community rallying behind this decision. Infura’s strong track record in blockchain infrastructure gives us confidence that they’ll enhance the stability and reliability of the network.
Voted to Whitelist Infura Validator at the temp check stage, given that Infura is already running validators successfully.
I voted FOR.
However, I must say that it lacked context and support documentation from the OP (So all delegates needed to go after it to properly vote).
We're voting For this proposal
Voted For: The proposal seems solid and straightforward. When researching Infura company I found out they have a very positive reputation. I see no reason not to support this proposal.
There is no doubt that whitelisting the Infura Nova validator can enhance the network's robustness and reliability and support Arbitrum's long-term growth and stability.
I fully support this proposal.
Abstract This proposal aims to whitelist a Nova validator operated by Infura, enhancing network security and reliability by leveraging their robust infrastructure and expertise.
We're voting FOR whitelisting Infura's Nova validator. It's a solid move to boost network security and stability. Infura's already proven themselves in the Data Availability Committee, so this feels like a natural next step.
That said, we're with the community on needing a clearer process for onboarding validators. It'd be great to see some transparent criteria and performance metrics down the line. This could help prevent oversights and keep everyone in the loop.
We're voting FOR whitelisting Infura's Nova validator. It's a solid move to boost network security and stability. Infura's already proven themselves in the Data Availability Committee, so this feels like a natural next step.
That said, we're with the community on needing a clearer process for onboarding validators. It'd be great to see some transparent criteria and performance metrics down the line. This could help prevent oversights and keep everyone in the loop.
As we grow, let's keep an eye on diversifying our validator pool. This is a good start, but there's room to push for more decentralization as we move forward.
In favor of the proposal: Rationale: The motivation for this proposal is to ensure that the network benefits from a highly reliable validator and that Infura's proven track record will significantly improve the performance of the network. The validator has previously operated effectively in the Data Availability Council, but was found not to be whitelisted during testing. Its inclusion will enhance the overall security and stability of the Nova network and contribute to the long-term growth of Arbitrum. As infura is outside my area of expertise, I have no other suggestions.
We are in strong support of whitelisting Infura’s validator as they have been a reliable infrastructure provider for years and has proven its capability through its participation in the Data Availability Committee (DAC).
Overall, we think the oversight highlights the need for a more formalized and transparent process for whitelisting validators. It would be beneficial to establish clear criteria and a step-by-step procedure to avoid confusion situations in the future. A public dashboard showing validator performance and uptime metrics could also be useful for ongoing accountability.
We are in strong support of whitelisting Infura’s validator as they have been a reliable infrastructure provider for years and has proven its capability through its participation in the Data Availability Committee (DAC).
Overall, we think the oversight highlights the need for a more formalized and transparent process for whitelisting validators. It would be beneficial to establish clear criteria and a step-by-step procedure to avoid confusion situations in the future. A public dashboard showing validator performance and uptime metrics could also be useful for ongoing accountability.
Just wondering now, are there any risks of over-reliance on a single infrastructure provider, especially given their dominance in the space? It might be worth exploring a diversification strategy for validators to avoid potential centralization risks in the future. Finally, will there be periodic reviews or performance checks for whitelisted validators to ensure they continue to meet the necessary standards?
Overall, nonetheless, still in strong support.
Infura is in my knowledge one of the most reliable provider out there, and also well known in the industry. While this is just a formality, obviously needs to be rectified so we can register them. Voting for.
Not sure if could be maybe a situation in which we also want to review how we handle onboarding/offboarding of infra provider, to avoid this happening again in future (but maybe as @cliffton.eth said was just an oversight and nothing more)
I'm supporting this proposal on Snapshot. I personally use Infura a lot as an RPC provider in various chains and their strong track record in the ecosystem as an infrastructure provider is well known. As mentioned in the proposal, it has already been running successfully for a while participating in the DAC, so it seems straightforward to continue the process and whitelist them.
I am FOR increasing the number of validators - this is positive for Arbitrum Nova. However, there are still a couple of questions:
You have written a lot about what good Arbitrum will receive and I completely agree with this. But you have not written anything about why you need validation. I assume to organize access to data, because you are one of the most widespread RPS providers? Or do you already have access to this data as a DAC participant?
I am FOR increasing the number of validators - this is positive for Arbitrum Nova. However, there are still a couple of questions:
You have written a lot about what good Arbitrum will receive and I completely agree with this. But you have not written anything about why you need validation. I assume to organize access to data, because you are one of the most widespread RPS providers? Or do you already have access to this data as a DAC participant?
By the way, there is a list of the committee on the Arbitrum website and Infura is not there.
voting Whitelist Infura Validator because I've always had a hard time trusting self-labelled alchemists to be honest =)
Abstract This proposal aims to whitelist a Nova validator operated by Infura, enhancing network security and reliability by leveraging their robust infrastructure and expertise.
Motivation To ensure the Arbitrum Nova network benefits from highly reliable and trusted validators, we propose adding Infura to the whitelist. Their proven track record in blockchain infrastructure will bolster the network’s performance and security.
Rationale Infura’s validator has been running successfully for a while, participating in the Data Availability Committee (DAC), but was not previously whitelisted. This oversight was discovered during testing. Whitelisting this validator will increase the number of active validators on Nova, enhancing overall security and reliability. Their infrastructure and operational expertise will significantly contribute to the stability and reliability of the Arbitrum Nova network.
Specifications
Conclusion By whitelisting the Infura Nova validator, we enhance the network’s robustness and reliability, supporting Arbitrum’s long-term growth and stability.
Rationale: The proposal is useful for enhancing network security and stability, and the proposal's motivation for whitelisting Infura's verified nodes helps to improve the security and performance of Arbitrum Nova.Infura's experience and reliability in the blockchain infrastructure space is a valuable resource. Since they are already successfully participating in the Data Availability Committee (DAC), it makes sense to add them to the role. While the proposal itself is clear, it is recommended that there be transparency in the implementation process, especially with respect to Infura's compliance and performance. Regular reporting to the community on the performance and contributions of the validators will help increase trust and attract more participants. Consideration could also be given to introducing additional validators in the future to ensure that Arbitrum Nova's validation system is more diverse and further decentralized.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
We understand that adding more validators, especially with proven uptime like Infura, is beneficial for the network’s security and reliability, and this step was long overdue.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
We understand that adding more validators, especially with proven uptime like Infura, is beneficial for the network’s security and reliability, and this step was long overdue.
We want to highlight the questions raised during the initial proposal discussion and would like further clarification on those.
However, we think it would be beneficial to establish clear criteria and a transparent process for whitelisting validators in the future and a method to avoid these oversights.
We want to raise the point of a transparent process of whitelisting validators and also what the compensation paid for whitelisted validators vs an organisation running the validator without it.
Is there any specific performance uptime for staying whitelisted? Can a whitelisted member be delisted for any particular reasons?
Blockworks Research will be voting in favor on this proposal on Snapshot.
This seems like just a hiccup in the process, and given Infura's prior uptime performance of 99.6%, we think that they are more than capable of working with the DAO.
gm, voting in favor of this proposal.
Infura's a reliable provider, and it looks like they are not already whitelisted due to an oversight.
This is a proposal about technology, forgive me for not being too professional in this area.
The proposal mentions that Infura's verification node is already running in the Nova network, but it was not previously whitelisted due to a slip-up during testing. Note that Infura should have been whitelisted, so I think now there is not much need for further complex discussion.
This is a proposal about technology, forgive me for not being too professional in this area.
The proposal mentions that Infura's verification node is already running in the Nova network, but it was not previously whitelisted due to a slip-up during testing. Note that Infura should have been whitelisted, so I think now there is not much need for further complex discussion.
On the other hand, Infura is known to be one of the most active infrastructure providers in the industry and has already supported the Arbitrum One network, so extending it to Arbitrum Nova as soon as possible is desirable and in the interest of the entire Arbitrum DAO.
So I fully support this proposal and look forward to Infura's continued contribution to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team.
We welcome adding Infura to the whitelisted validators for Arbitrum Nova.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team.
We welcome adding Infura to the whitelisted validators for Arbitrum Nova.
However, we think it would be beneficial to establish clear criteria and a transparent process for whitelisting validators in the future and a method to avoid these oversights.
We want to raise the point of a transparent process of whitelisting validators and also what the compensation paid for whitelisted validators vs an organisation running the validator without it.
Is there any specific performance uptime for staying whitelisted? Can a whitelisted member be delisted for any particular reasons?
We're glad to see Infura's Nova validator being added to the whitelist. However, we think it would be beneficial to establish clear criteria and a transparent process for whitelisting validators in the future and a method to avoid these oversights. Also, providing regular updates on validator performance might be a great addition.
Got it, so moving forward is it expected for the DAO to whitelist more validator infrastructure providers or is this just a one time situation?
Generally speaking, we're in favor of this, Infura is one of the oldest and most active infrastructure providers in the industry. Infura already supports Arbitrum One, and thus it only makes sense to allow for provision in Arbitrum Nova as well. Was there a specific reason why Infura was not whitelisted previously despite its participation and performance?
We would also like to ask if there is a dashboard to show Infura's performance/uptime in the Arbitrum ecosystem. Aside from that we are in favor.
Hi! Where can we find more information about the items mentioned on the proposal?
I believe it’s positive that Infura has been added to the whitelist, as it’s a reliable provider in the industry. However, are there any risks in over-relying on Infura’s infrastructure? I would like to wait and see what the majority thinks before voting.
Abstract This proposal aims to whitelist a Nova validator operated by Infura, enhancing network security and reliability by leveraging their robust infrastructure and expertise.
Motivation To ensure the Arbitrum Nova network benefits from highly reliable and trusted validators, we propose adding Infura to the whitelist. Their proven track record in blockchain infrastructure will bolster the network’s performance and security.
Rationale Infura’s validator has been running successfully for a while, participating in the Data Availability Committee (DAC), but was not previously whitelisted. This oversight was discovered during testing. Whitelisting this validator will increase the number of active validators on Nova, enhancing overall security and reliability. Their infrastructure and operational expertise will significantly contribute to the stability and reliability of the Arbitrum Nova network.
Specifications
Conclusion By whitelisting the Infura Nova validator, we enhance the network’s robustness and reliability, supporting Arbitrum’s long-term growth and stability.
Rationale: The proposal is useful for enhancing network security and stability, and the proposal's motivation for whitelisting Infura's verified nodes helps to improve the security and performance of Arbitrum Nova.Infura's experience and reliability in the blockchain infrastructure space is a valuable resource. Since they are already successfully participating in the Data Availability Committee (DAC), it makes sense to add them to the role. While the proposal itself is clear, it is recommended that there be transparency in the implementation process, especially with respect to Infura's compliance and performance. Regular reporting to the community on the performance and contributions of the validators will help increase trust and attract more participants. Consideration could also be given to introducing additional validators in the future to ensure that Arbitrum Nova's validation system is more diverse and further decentralized.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
We understand that adding more validators, especially with proven uptime like Infura, is beneficial for the network’s security and reliability, and this step was long overdue.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
We understand that adding more validators, especially with proven uptime like Infura, is beneficial for the network’s security and reliability, and this step was long overdue.
We want to highlight the questions raised during the initial proposal discussion and would like further clarification on those.
However, we think it would be beneficial to establish clear criteria and a transparent process for whitelisting validators in the future and a method to avoid these oversights.
We want to raise the point of a transparent process of whitelisting validators and also what the compensation paid for whitelisted validators vs an organisation running the validator without it.
Is there any specific performance uptime for staying whitelisted? Can a whitelisted member be delisted for any particular reasons?
Blockworks Research will be voting in favor on this proposal on Snapshot.
This seems like just a hiccup in the process, and given Infura's prior uptime performance of 99.6%, we think that they are more than capable of working with the DAO.
gm, voting in favor of this proposal.
Infura's a reliable provider, and it looks like they are not already whitelisted due to an oversight.
This is a proposal about technology, forgive me for not being too professional in this area.
The proposal mentions that Infura's verification node is already running in the Nova network, but it was not previously whitelisted due to a slip-up during testing. Note that Infura should have been whitelisted, so I think now there is not much need for further complex discussion.
This is a proposal about technology, forgive me for not being too professional in this area.
The proposal mentions that Infura's verification node is already running in the Nova network, but it was not previously whitelisted due to a slip-up during testing. Note that Infura should have been whitelisted, so I think now there is not much need for further complex discussion.
On the other hand, Infura is known to be one of the most active infrastructure providers in the industry and has already supported the Arbitrum One network, so extending it to Arbitrum Nova as soon as possible is desirable and in the interest of the entire Arbitrum DAO.
So I fully support this proposal and look forward to Infura's continued contribution to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team.
We welcome adding Infura to the whitelisted validators for Arbitrum Nova.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team.
We welcome adding Infura to the whitelisted validators for Arbitrum Nova.
However, we think it would be beneficial to establish clear criteria and a transparent process for whitelisting validators in the future and a method to avoid these oversights.
We want to raise the point of a transparent process of whitelisting validators and also what the compensation paid for whitelisted validators vs an organisation running the validator without it.
Is there any specific performance uptime for staying whitelisted? Can a whitelisted member be delisted for any particular reasons?
We're glad to see Infura's Nova validator being added to the whitelist. However, we think it would be beneficial to establish clear criteria and a transparent process for whitelisting validators in the future and a method to avoid these oversights. Also, providing regular updates on validator performance might be a great addition.
Got it, so moving forward is it expected for the DAO to whitelist more validator infrastructure providers or is this just a one time situation?
Generally speaking, we're in favor of this, Infura is one of the oldest and most active infrastructure providers in the industry. Infura already supports Arbitrum One, and thus it only makes sense to allow for provision in Arbitrum Nova as well. Was there a specific reason why Infura was not whitelisted previously despite its participation and performance?
We would also like to ask if there is a dashboard to show Infura's performance/uptime in the Arbitrum ecosystem. Aside from that we are in favor.
Hi! Where can we find more information about the items mentioned on the proposal?
I believe it’s positive that Infura has been added to the whitelist, as it’s a reliable provider in the industry. However, are there any risks in over-relying on Infura’s infrastructure? I would like to wait and see what the majority thinks before voting.
