Noticed something in the BSN architecture diagram that clarifies how Vigilantes actually operate they perform genuinely distinct actions depending on which side of the system they're watching.
On the BSN side
per the architecture Vigilantes handle registering new finality providers and slashing them when needed.
On the Babylon Genesis side,
the same category of actor handles a broader set BTC timestamping registering new finality providers there too processing delegations and unbonding and slash actions.
That's not one uniform job description applied twice.
It's two distinct operational scopes connected to Trustless Bitcoin Vaults (TBV)'s broader security foundation sharing a name because they're conceptually the same kind of watcher
but doing meaningfully distinct specific work depending on which chain they're actually monitoring.
Makes sense once BSNs are understood as genuinely independent chains borrowing shared security rather than clones of Babylon Genesis itself each side needs its own specific monitoring logic even if the underlying trust model is shared.
Whether every future BSN ends up needing this exact same two sided Vigilante split
or whether some BSNs need a genuinely different monitoring shape entirely isn't something the current documentation settles.
Does a shared name across genuinely different job scopes make a system easier or harder to actually reason about?
@BabylonLabs_io $BABY
#baby
$BULLA
$ON
On the BSN side
per the architecture Vigilantes handle registering new finality providers and slashing them when needed.
On the Babylon Genesis side,
the same category of actor handles a broader set BTC timestamping registering new finality providers there too processing delegations and unbonding and slash actions.
That's not one uniform job description applied twice.
It's two distinct operational scopes connected to Trustless Bitcoin Vaults (TBV)'s broader security foundation sharing a name because they're conceptually the same kind of watcher
but doing meaningfully distinct specific work depending on which chain they're actually monitoring.
Makes sense once BSNs are understood as genuinely independent chains borrowing shared security rather than clones of Babylon Genesis itself each side needs its own specific monitoring logic even if the underlying trust model is shared.
Whether every future BSN ends up needing this exact same two sided Vigilante split
or whether some BSNs need a genuinely different monitoring shape entirely isn't something the current documentation settles.
Does a shared name across genuinely different job scopes make a system easier or harder to actually reason about?
@BabylonLabs_io $BABY
#baby
$BULLA
$ON