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
Whitelist the Infura Nova validator.
Ensure compliance with Arbitrum Nova’s validation requirements.
Conclusion
By whitelisting the Infura Nova validator, we enhance the network’s robustness and reliability, supporting Arbitrum’s long-term growth and stability.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team.
We welcome adding Infura to the whitelisted validators for Arbitrum Nova.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
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)
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?
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.
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.