Once again scene I agree with what you saying sir. It should be earned.
Our delegators have been very supportive and stuck with us even through our commissioning hikes and we are grateful.
I’m just trying to understand what did Alif do to lose the TEAMS trust @indra.
Another example of a billion-dollar project:
Osmosis’s criteria for listing - not for validation, but this applies to every existing whitelisting or integration process. Some even require contract signing.
Standard criteria should be implemented, and they should be met accordingly.
This is a pretty standard guideline for integration and verification.
It exists to avoid unwanted situations like now, which is why I suggested it back in September 2023 - foresight is needed to run a company.
The reason this happened is because funds were delegated and funds were undelegated. But if the team had listened to my suggestion, it would have been avoided.
Analogy:
Situation: Giving a kid a chocolate bar and taking it back. What will happen? They will make a fuss.
Solution: Give the kid a set of criteria, do his homework, and he will be rewarded with chocolate.
This provides commitment and effort from both sides. And whitelisting exists to protect a protocol’s reputation to mitigate black swan events.
What you are saying makes sense for projects which have achieved true decentralization. When more than 70% of tokens are locked / team owned, there is only so much marketing will do.
Like you said in your above post, performance needs to be evaluated, but current actions are based on no metrics. Fairness, transparency and a logical system for decision making is a must to build a decentralized ecosystem.
@cop4200 quoted: What you are saying makes sense for projects which have achieved true decentralization.
With respect, again, this does not make any sense.
Standard criteria have nothing to do with being decentralized or centralized. You are missing the point.
These are the questions you will get asked in any other protocol to get integrated, just like Lido.
None of the projects mentioned above are even near being decentralized, let alone true decentralization.
I believe this word “Decentralized” is being used too loosely by the general crypto community, who have no network access to those internal groups or knows how startups even work.
Every project needs its own foundation to steer towards a self-sustainable route first before letting the reigns loose. I shouldn’t need to explain something so self-explanatory.
Even Arbitrum had to explain to their community that decentralization is a journey and they are currently centralized. They termed it “Progressive Decentralization” which means → towards decentralization.
As for current actions:
Hi Cop, I understand your concern, and I have informed the Baklava team as well. As they mentioned, they will keep monitoring this and will update the vault.
I believe both the Baklava team and the Foundation are working on a solution. They will announce if there’s any update, as quoted above by the team.
In the meantime, let’s imagine the criteria are implemented now.
Are the validators confident they can pass the standard criteria to get integrated into any protocol?
Performance
Statistics will show everyone’s performance.
Reputation
What networks do you have?
Do you have a trustworthy presence?
Why should regular users trust you over professionals?
Effort
Are you active on social media and on GitHub?
What effort are you making to attract delegators?
These are the basic legitimate COMMON questions you will get asked in any other project to get integrated. It has nothing to do with decentralization, it’s about mitigating RISKS.
In an ideal picture, what you are saying makes sense.
But you are missing the point here. What criteria makes top 30 less likely to get slashed?Whatever that criteria is, we would like to understand so we can improve.
Alif got knocked down from spot 32 to 38. Where do we lack, that we get grouped with under performers.
The Top 30 isn’t even a legit criteria, which is why I said in my previous posts that the choice they made is totally opposite of what I suggested.
To make it clear, my previous post said:
I quoted:
Firstly, the foundation approach is totally different from what I mentioned months ago.
Limiting to top 30 or 40 does not solve the core issue.
And to add on, it’s not “In an ideal picture”. I literally deal with other project teams and it’s a standard set of rules.
No protocol will blindly list a stranger just because “Trust me bro”. It has to go through verification.
What I’m proposing is a set of standard guidelines that everyone has to go through.
The reason for a set of guidelines is because validators are handling user’s funds. And if a project were to grow to a significant stage, the stakes will be much greater which is why rules are supposed to be implemented at the beginning.
I am totally on board with your idea. I fought for it in the validators chat group when main net was launched.
The issue at the time was, if we are running 5 servers (main, 2 sentry, backup and a monitoring server) for our validator, there was no way of distinguishing our service quality from others who were running nodes with Raspberry pies from their homes. YES, we had explained our setup on our twitter and forums here, but average investors makes their delegation decision based return %. We can never compete with home based validators in commissions. Most public validators of the current top 30 “outstanding performers” didn’t even know about sentry or simply didn’t see value in setting them up.
Back then, team didn’t recognize us as “outstanding performer” and just sprinkled their tokens randomly among all validators based on who knows what criteria.
This is the time when even uptime was being tracked. Finally it came, but even today only tracking latest 20,000 blocks doesn’t reflect past performance.
And now this Top 30 criteria? What message is team trying to send here ?
It could be temporary while they discuss and plan going forward.
Ultimately, the decision will be made by Baklava, as both projects work independently, I would assume.
Let’s just give them some time and wait for the official statement.
I would just like to point out, even though a Validator may not vote, their Delegators can or Do decide their vote them self, so just because the validator has a large following, do not mean delegators to those are not contributing to the networks governance.
Greetings lords of functionx 
and Baklavan 
,
Firstly thanks for the support and love! We are honored to be building on FXCore, with our top 2 of 3 vaults now coming from FXCore.
In the spirit on building on the strong, we want to explore building more smart vaults for FXCore, or friends of FXCore like PundiXChain or Purse_Land, suggestions are welcomed! 
urs truly
Joe, a loyal assistant of @JohnB and @Keith from Baklava Space.
Hi Joe,
I think it’s good. Just to confirm here, the Purse token is single token staking and the PancakeSwap liquidity pool, is it?
Hi lord of funtionx @indra ,
You r wise, and correct. Is there such an interest?
If Baklava team allocated $bava token to reward this pool, why not? It will benefit the Purse stakers and liquidity providers.
Thanks! Teşekkürler!
Truth is we are already working on it, and we hope $Purse holders will stake on our vault when it goes live!
Hi guys !
Happy to see you back around, even if you were probably not that far away…
Could you please give some guidance about how “reinvest” button operates please ?
Thanks
Regards
@FrenchXCore
Wat happend whit Bava 
Hey, you can find the info here.
Thanks @JohnB !!
I want to update you on Purse pools on Baklava Space. My teammate @JoeB has spilled the news, but we want to confirm it is in testing now. Our team will launch the vaults to auto-compound:
On a different topic, team Baklava Space plans to conduct a security audit starting on f(x)Delegate vault.
We have approached Hacken, Pessimistic and Certik.
All three company’s costs are in the same rang $15,000 - $20,000 for auditing f(x)Delegate vault. Hence we want to know who do you think has a better reputation in the space? @FrenchXCore , @SCENE, @cop4200 or other lords of FunctionX feedback appreciated.
