Node Pool Accountability

Hey frens, I’m a long term Chainlink community member and former advocate (before I started working full-time). I have a few questions regarding what accountability looks like for Chainlink node operators in v2.0 and was directed here by a member of the Chainlink team.

Chainlink node operators that chose to use 3rd party capital incur an accountability issue with slashing. People who choose to stake with a certain node operator will be slashed whereas the node operators themselves will be relatively unscathed (aside from reputation).

This could potentially create a stakeholder misalignment issue similar to what we have seen recently with Bancor ILP. Protocol stakers have different incentives to protocol operators - when push comes to shove, those who have rights to governance will act in their best interest.

Chainlink node operators require DAO tooling that allows LINK stakers OR “collateral providers” to participate in the governance of the node they are using to stake their LINK. This would essentially ensure that

My question:
Is LinkPool (or anyone for that matter) building DAO tooling for Chainlink nodes? Will node governance operate on a node level or will it be part of Chainlink infra? I would imagine that governance would only be necessary if a dispute we’re to happen to the node but there may be other use-cases.

Something was mentioned in Chainlink’s initial blog post here regarding the initial implementation of staking which indicated that node governance might operate on the Chainlink protocol level - but wanted to get the LinkPool communities thoughts on this?

1 Like