[Proposal] Assign 500 NODEstream to each DAppNode purchaser under the Gnosis Chain Decentralized Validator Incentive Program


Assign 500 NODEstream to each DAppNode purchaser that is selected for the Gnosis Chain Decentralized Validator Incentive Program.

Background and purpose

During the NODEdrop, the criteria that the DAppNode Association took to distribute their NODE token was to include stakeholders that are aligned with the mission and values of DAppNode to make them a part of the NODEconomy.

Thanks to the partnership between DAppNode and Gnosis Chain, we are bringing new users to their community of validators.

This proposal aims to turn those new users in members of the DAppNode community, and make them part of the future of DAppNode.


I suggest to assign a conditional NODEstream of 500 $NODE to each of the beneficiaries of the Gnosis Chain Decentralized Validator Incentive Program. The stream would be for 2 years and it would be conditional to them using DAppNode to maintain decentralized infrastructure. How can we know whether they are maintaining decentralized infrastructure if DAppNode does not capture any metrics? By looking at the validators that they receive from the Gnosis Chain incentive program: As long as the validators are up and validating, the NODEstream would keep flowing. After 1 month (30 days) of inactivity or after the withdrawal of the Validator deposit, the NODEstream would be revoked. I have chosen 30 days because DAppNode users are mostly individual node runners in home setups. 30 days is plenty of time for this type of user to get their node up and running again if they had a problem, a move of residency, a problem during their holidays, etc.

Another way of revoking the stream would be via a DAO proposal if a participant is detected to have “bad faith” - a term that I will let without much description but generally going against the purpose of the program, trying to abuse the program or doing something against the interest of the broader DAppNodeDAO. Note that this shouldn’t have to occur and we might never need to take such measures.


For the pilot program 30 users will be beneficiaries of the program, which prices this proposal to 15,000 NODE.

Nevertheless, we are in talks in order to expand this program to 1000 units. It is possible that this number is reduced, but I would like to include in this proposal the possibility of allocating the necessary NODE, which will be returned to the DAO treasury if not used.

1000 * 500 = 500,000 NODE

I will post this in our snapshot tomorrow if there’s no significant changes suggested by the community members and we’ll be able to vote!


From a management and operations perspective, will the activity review process be automated? Or will a DAppNode team member have to manually check each account monthly to make sure they are still validating?

I wouldn’t want this to become an operational challenge for the team.

Very good question!

The easiest solution is to, once a month, run a script that checks the list of validators that are part of the program, warns the ones that are offline but <30 days and flags the ones that are >30days offline for manual removal. This shouldn’t be a burden.

The not-so-easy but a-lot-more-fun is to leave it in the hands of the community with a lazy validator hunt: if you flag someone that has been >30 days offline, you get 25% of the remaining NODEstream while the 75% goes back to the DAO. Could even do it 50/50 :man_shrugging: but that’s a further proposal hehehe.

imho that’s a low incentive for 2 years.
the value of the incentive should probably reflect a cashback deal vs the cost of a device.
so anywhere around $2000 worth of NODE for 2 years.

Is the 4 GNO incentive going to remain in place, so the buyer can run 4 Gnosis validators? If so, I think that alone is plenty of incentive to buy the DAppNode.

The additional 500 Node is a nice perk, and helps enhance the DAppNode/Gnosis partnership. But I don’t think that we need to sweeten the deal by more than that for now. After all, the initial allotment of 30 units was oversubscribed by 4x in under 24 hours, and it didn’t include any Node at all.


@JHGrove3 is correct, the 4 GNO are intended to cover exactly this: they are supposed to cover the cost of the DAppNode hardware. The NODE is intended to make them a part of the holder community and give them a voice in the DAO. They can acquire more if they feel they want a bigger representation.

I don’t think they need double cashback :stuck_out_tongue:

I agree, the 4 GNO is enough to generate interest. The 500 NODE is more of a community generating initiative. The 2 year release schedule is to prevent instant selling of the assigned NODE.

Is there any number that would be significant or meaningful for promotional purposes? For example, if we had 476 people running Gnosis validators on their DAppNode we could set the incentive to 476 NODE with purchase. Or for 2022 we could announce that we are giving away 2022 NODE with purchase. Or something like that. (Although I think giving away 2022 NODE is too much, but you get the idea.)

What about fringe cases such as having a validator slashed. What would happen to their NODEStream; would they lose it? even if their other validators kept going with high uptime etc? just want to flesh out some details but overall I’m certainly in favor, the best thing for any organization especially one that’s decentralized like our DAO is for all stakeholders to have skin in the game and all be aligned with the desire for all the projects to succeed and the crypto ecosystem as a whole to evolve and grow.

1 Like

Good one! Since slashing means 1) you are either attacking the network (and/or) 2) you will not be validating and underpinning the security of the network anymore, the NODEstream would also be revoked.
Good to clarify this before we are in the situation!

1 Like

I agree with those situations 100% i guess I am wondering more about really fringe cases since this chain is new and while it uses the same software as a base as Ethereum mainnet does, the possibility of getting slashed due to a bug in the software or something is a distinct possibility. Quite low probability but possible, shall we do a case by case analysis in situations like that?

Request all logs if we find a bug that was clearly not introduced by the user or their config, we allow but if we don’t get full logs or find they did act in “bad faith” in some way then they get the boot? It’s unlikely to happen but I think having some sort of basic investigation process laid out in advance for really fringe cases such as this or other similar things (where someone does everything right, acts in good faith, is online with strong uptime etc. but something very unexpected happens) should be laid out for the same reason of clarification before starting. I think this would never come to pass for the first 30. But, if/when the program grows quite a bit, it becomes more probable so we should just lay out a basic mechanism of investigation similar to what I alluded to above for real fringe cases so you don’t get the boot for stumbling over a bug.

That makes absolute sense. While it’s impossible to consider all edge cases, we can always use common sense and use this forum to decide over such edge cases. My takes on the situation you mentioned:

  1. If the slash occurs due to a known bug, that could not be avoided, and good faith can be proven (by showing the logs or some minimal investigation, as you say) we should NOT remove the NODEstream. If there is no such known bug in existence, there shouldn’t even be an investigation. It’s the responsibility of the slashed individual to ask proactively for the investigation.

For really wild edge cases, I suggest that if members of the community find themselves in a pickle, they can just raise the issue in discord or in the forum and common sense will be applied. To define “common sense”, I mean really wild technical edge cases, as the 30 day period already covers enough time for any strange life situation like moving, outages, etc.

1 Like

It may be too late to chime in, but I had a few quantity suggestions to consider.

Since they are getting 4 GNO, we could give them:

444 NODE


For the Base 2 nerds (which presumably most Node runners are…)
4 x 128 NODE = 512 NODE

4^4 = 256 NODE


4 NODE per week for 2 years
4 x 52 x 2 = 416 NODE


Getting away from the 4 pattern, we could give them free crypto every day for 2 years
1 node per day
1 x 365 x 2 = 730 NODE