Supporting Community-Aligned Validators

Recently we have had two of the biggest community-driven proposals seen in dYdX’s history, which are:

[DIP] dYdX Short-Term Boost Program (STBP)

[DRC] dYdX Community Staking with pSTAKE Finance

These proposals aren’t just any proposals; they represent the largest community-driven efforts we’ve seen to date. They embody the collective aspirations for what dYdX can become: a truly decentralized and community-governed platform. However, a new challenge has emerged with the shift towards validator-based voting, revealing a stark divide in interests within our ecosystem.

As we have now transitioned to validators having the only role in decision-making, it’s become apparent that not all validators share the community’s vision. Some prioritise personal gains or those of their close associates—a dynamic reminiscent of the centralized powers we aim to distance ourselves from.

It’s now clear that these three validators are not aligned with the community:

  • Santorini (Blockchain Capital and investor in Reverie)
  • (Investors in Stride and awarded $300,000 grant by Reverie)

These validators have shown through their voting patterns that they do not support either of the two biggest community-driven proposals. Possibly also due to their ties with Reverie.

If you want validators who support community-driven proposals, and who are unbiased, then we need to consider this. We need to mobilize and realign our staking choices. We must support validators who stand with the community, those who are genuinely pushing for initiatives that reflect our collective values and vision.

By channelling our voting power towards these community-aligned validators, we can ensure that dYdX remains a platform that is run by and for the community, rather than being dictated by a select few.

If you agree then we strongly urge you to consider unstaking from validators who have not supported community-driven proposals and redirect your support towards those who do. Also, talk about this within your networks. The more people are aware, the stronger our collective action can be.


Much time and effort has gone into getting these proposals to the dYdX community. While I cannot speak to any incentive misalignment that validators might have, it would be great if they could provide reasoning for their voting choices. This would greatly help proposers to make any needed corrections to their proposals, and for future proposers to better craft their proposals.

Thank you @CipherLabs however for raising these concerns, I hope more validators will be more willing to regularly engage with the community.

1 Like

This so hard needed. There has been a period where validators did that more often, but since some of them got big (to big?) there is a massive decline on that area.