i thought slashing was mostly about losing some stake and moving on… fix the problem, wait a bit then come back like nothing happened. the more i looked into @BabylonLabs_io the more i realized thats not really the mindset here.
what surprised me wasnt how much gets slashed… it was how the network treats the identity after it happens.
if a Finality Provider double-signs, thats pretty much the end of that identity. voting power drops away, the provider gets marked as slashed and there isnt some normal path where the same key quietly returns later. i sat with that for a while becuse it changes the whole feeling of the role.
this isnt just “pay a penalty and try again”
its more like… break the trust once and the network remembers forever.
i kinda get why they designed it this way. if finality is supposed to protect everyone, maybe the system shouldnt keep asking users to trust an identity that already crossed the line once. thats a strong message and honestly it probably makes operators think twice before taking shortcuts.
but i also keep wondering about the other side…
what if the mistake wasnt greed, what if it was bad infra, a key problem or some weird failure nobody expected. permanent removal is a clean rule, but clean rules can still feel harsh when real life gets messy.
so yeah i dont really see this as “strict vs soft”
i see it as Babylon choosing long term trust over second chances… and thats a tradeoff i dont think enough people talk about.
would you rather a network forgive operators after they pay the cost… or never ask users to trust that same identity again??
@BabylonLabs_io #baby $BABY
what surprised me wasnt how much gets slashed… it was how the network treats the identity after it happens.
if a Finality Provider double-signs, thats pretty much the end of that identity. voting power drops away, the provider gets marked as slashed and there isnt some normal path where the same key quietly returns later. i sat with that for a while becuse it changes the whole feeling of the role.
this isnt just “pay a penalty and try again”
its more like… break the trust once and the network remembers forever.
i kinda get why they designed it this way. if finality is supposed to protect everyone, maybe the system shouldnt keep asking users to trust an identity that already crossed the line once. thats a strong message and honestly it probably makes operators think twice before taking shortcuts.
but i also keep wondering about the other side…
what if the mistake wasnt greed, what if it was bad infra, a key problem or some weird failure nobody expected. permanent removal is a clean rule, but clean rules can still feel harsh when real life gets messy.
so yeah i dont really see this as “strict vs soft”
i see it as Babylon choosing long term trust over second chances… and thats a tradeoff i dont think enough people talk about.
would you rather a network forgive operators after they pay the cost… or never ask users to trust that same identity again??
@BabylonLabs_io #baby $BABY