Distributed Validators Synctems

Team / Company / DAO

Distributed Validators Synctems is the first Decentralized Autonomous Synchronization of validators.

Yes, you read it right way! Not “Systems”, and not “Organization”.

We are living in a paradigm shift.
The words “System” and “Organization” are words from the old industrial paradigm, where everything had a center and a creator. A new paradigm requires new words, and therefore it is up to us to create them!

The word “Synctem” comes from the word “Synchronization”.
This is a system that didn’t appear by anyone’s will, but which self-created as a result of synchronization.

The word “Organization” is also not acceptable for our self-identity, since “organization” means the organizer (center).
Therefore, we use the word “Synchronization” not only as a verb, but also as a noun - a union that arose in the process of synchronization.

At the moment, DVS Validators are represented in almost 50 networks, in the main-nets and in the test-nets.

Experience

Our validators have a great experience in validating of the different chains, and especially in Tendermint & Cosmos-SDK based chains.
We are validating (in main-nets and test-nets):
Akash Network
Certik
Cyber
Rizon Platform
Idena
Microtick
Sentinel
Stargaze
Likecoin
Cryptocom
Juno Network
Regen Network
Althea Network
KIRA Network
IRIS Network
Starname
Persistence
Fetch.ai
Ki Chain
Osmosis
OmniFlix Network
BitCanna
Straightedge
Agoric
Desmos

The full list of main-nets and test-nets of each DVS Validator you can find by the links:

web34ever validate 18 different main-nets and 28 test-nets

cyberG validate 10 main-nets and 18 test-nets

POSTHUMAN validate 6 main-nets and 5 test-nets

Imperator validate 5 main-nets and 2 test-nets

OpenTech Staking validate 2 main-nets and 1 test-net

STAKR.space validate 4 main-nets and 25 test-nets

Colinka validate 3 main-nets and 9 test-nets

papsan validate 2 main-nets and 3 test-nets

moonsoon validate 2 main-nets and 10 test-nets

Security

Our validators use only certified and trusted data-centers, and also, part of our validators use local private data-centers.

Tools, that we usually use to prevent any threats:

  • Firewall
  • Sentry nodes for the main-nets chains
  • Hardware devices for private keys

Reliability

We are responsible for our actions!
DVS has its own foundation, which is created by DVS-validators.
In case of our mistake, which will lead to the loss of delegates’ funds, we undertake to fully compensate for the losses from our foundation.

Tools, that we usually use to get the best stats:

  • Grafana monitoring
  • Prometheus monitoring
  • Telegraf alert system
  • Backups of necessary data

Performance

For different Networks we use different physical hardware, which is recommended in the documentation for running the validator.
All our validators spend different amounts on infrastructure, depending on the number of validated networks, as well as the number of main-nets and test-nets. Average infrastructure maintenance costs range from $200 to $1000 per month

Communication

For communication we use:

Governance

Our vision of relations is a digital friendship!
We cannot find a better word to describe the relationships that we try to create and cultivate.
Like all friends, we are very different, we are distributed all over the World, each of us has a different vision and values, but we agree on one thing: being together is much more fun, interesting and effective!
Between Win-Win and Competition , we choose the first!

As decentralists, we try to come to a consensus on any issue.
If we are unable to reach a consensus, each of the validators votes for the proposal based on personal considerations.
On most issues, we have the same opinion. We will try to prevent any threat of Network Centralization.

We are not able to tell about the exact plans of our participation in management, since all our decisions are based on the initial study of the situation, as well as on the analysis of the results of the decisions made.
So far we haven’t seen a better tools of governance than creating proposals and voting on those proposals. But we can guarantee that all our decisions will be in the interests of the Network and the Community, as we are the part of it.

Our contribution to accelerating the decentralization

Education:

18 Likes

This approach to validation increase decentralization and decrease stake concentration or censorship threat, because the group of independent validators are acting as independent players, instead of possible manipulation by the whale validator with huge stake. Thumbs up for that candidate!

2 Likes

I agree with this candidate as well!

2 Likes

Hey guys, I feel your decentral hype, I was just wondering what synchronising validators means? Is it a formal agreement to be friendly and share IP? What does it mean beyond this? And do new validators get accepted into your synctem by on-chain votes?

2 Likes

So, new time needs new words to explain it.
We can’t really speak about decentralization in the words of industrial paradigm.

Word “organization” - is a centralist word. Because it means that somebody organize something.
And word Synchronization - is decentralized word. For example - Forest is decentralized synchronization. No central part in the forest. Nobody organize forest. Forest created by itself, as the result of synchronization of many different parts: Trees, animals, mushrooms, bacterias, and so on…

For now, it’s more like a form of digital friendship, as all of as know each other for a long time. And we understand, that to cooperate with each other much more effectively not only for us, but also for the Network, and for the community. And also for all networks where we are, coz we create not only network connection, but also social connection between projects.

Here is you can read our “minimal requirement”: GitHub - Distributed-Validators-Synctems/Synchronize-with-DVS: Wanna join us?

We are in the beginning, and this is just an experiment for now.
We don’t want to become a one big validator, because it’s a threat of centralization.
But we understand, that when behind a validator a lot of people - it’s much more effectively, because some people can work with community, some people with technical part, and so on…
So, we don’t have many different ways: to be together more effectively than to be alone, but one validator is more centralized than several validators.
We try to be together, but also - every validator still independent, and they always can disagree, or leave synchronization. So, it’s possible that DVS Validators will vote different for the proposal. Some can say yes, some can say no. For us it’s not a problem.
But we want to create situation, when one validator don’t need to spend a time and resources to attract delegators from another validator.

As result we want to create something like a pool of validators, that will be under the governance of DAS (not DAO) - Decentralized Autonomous Synchronization. And we will spread funds among us by the voting for proposals. And in this case, for me it’s not important to spend a time to tell: Delegate to my validator, not to others!
I will have possibility to say: Delegate to any validator! Because as the result, reward will be in pool, and I will get my part, that is proportional to my contribution for the Synchronization.

And by this way we will spend our recourse more effectively. For example, if somebody of us don’t have enough stake - we can easily redelegate from one of our validator to another, because no real difference, which of our validator get the stake. All reward will go to our pool at the end.

For now, we are sharing with skills. Some of us have good technical skills, and they spend more time for updating nodes, monitoring, security… Some of us have good humanitarian skills - creating content, working with community, writing an applies… And for now it works perfectly, coz not so many people, and evrybody see the contributions of others.

But we are growing fast, so soon we will launch blockchain on cosmos-sdk, to governance our funds. And we will have new kind of consensus - PoT - Proof-of-Time. And it will be build with Cosmos-sdk modules.

So, this is interest experiment. Nobody before doing such things)

For now, we accept new validators by the online meet, and if nobody against - we accept such validator to be a part of Synchronization. But for now - reputation of validator is the most important for us. Because mistake of one validator - is a blame on reputation of all Synchronization. So, we always compensate all mistakes of our validators. And this is good for the Network, and for the community.

1 Like

Thanks for the long response :pray: you’re attempting a significant project! I love your validator school Readme, I have been thinking of a similar model. Good luck my friends

I’m interested why you’re starting a blockchain and not simply using a multi-sig for governance of funds?

I also have this dream of a scalable, decentralised pool of validators, but I think it is difficult to make it trustless, without exposing to attacks, or abuse of network funds by a single validator for their own benefit. Will you use a type of staking/slashing function to incentivise good behaviour from every validator?

2 Likes

By several reasons.
At first, we need to have a test-net to tech new people to validate.
At second, cosmos-sdk have a governance module.
At third, we want to create new kind of consensus, and show to others, that the blockchain have much more possibilities, and economical power and social power can be separated (all PoS have combined social and economical power model, and this is a threat for the Network).
Soon, we will published research about it.

We solve this question theoretically, and to check our theory - we need to run a chain with PoT. We will see how it will works. But in theory, validators will stop to concurence for the delegators, and will concurence for the uptime

2 Likes

Amazing, I’m also interested in time-based commitments altering governance. Looking forward to reading your research :scroll:
It’s a complicated thing. Different participants have different intentions with a network, and a kind of time dimension might allow for each preference to be incentivised and given more or less power depending on the type of governance decision at hand.

2 Likes

Soon we will finished with documentation, and we will published it.
But idea is separate kinds of governance, that same people can’t decide for every question. And also it means that will be 3 different kinds of governance tokens

1 Like

Поддержу ,ребята разбираются в том что делают, удачи!! :vulcan_salute:

1 Like