Changelog

Have something to say?

Tell Rated how they could make the product more useful to you.

Completed

Solana delegator APY%

Hi, I'm going through your docs, the Solana delegator APY page to be specific and I cannot find a clear answer if the delegatorApy field from the /v0/solana/validators/ /summary endpoint response includes the MEV APR or not? Based on the value and compared to other API providers it seems like it does not cause the value is lower compared to other providers? If it does not include it, is there any API of yours that provides JITO MEV APR for delegators? Thanks!

Michal Baranowski 4 months ago

2

Completed

"validatorCount" is number earning rewards on the first day of the "granularity"?

The "validatorCount" you return always gives the number of validators that did earn rewards on the first day of the "granularity" (e.g. "week/month"), correct? When doing some calculations for periods where the number changed during the week, this led to some confusion at first. https://api.rated.network/v1/eth/sets/SETID/proposals?fromDate=2024-06-03&toDate=2024-08-15&granularity=week&limit=100&offset=0 Internally, we are now resorting to an “"avg" number of reward- earning vals" if we are comparing different groups. Obviously this also has drawbacks like not being integer etc.

Freddy-from-Germany 4 months ago

2

Completed

Method of blockspace distribution detection

Dear Rated team, I am a contributor to the NOM workstream of the Lido DAO and thus especially interested in your dashboards concerning our modules. In the overview of the Curated Module I noticed that you listed severals NOs who the explorer claimed had obtained blocks from unvetted Titan relay in the past 30 days. I was able to confirm this for all but one NO by comparing the slots in which the blocks had been proposed with the relay’s API. Normally such blocks stick out in our own Fees Monitoring Dashboard as being from slots of an “unknown relay”. What was unique for the NO in question, is, that unlike for the other NOs, for none of this NO’s unknown relay slots I could produce a query that was responded to by the proposer_payload_delivered endpoint of the Titan - or by any other of the APIs of widely known relays - making me fairly certain we are looking at locally built “vanilla blocks”. But then, where does the Titan relay blockspace you listed for the NO come from? We got in touch with them - Kiln - and were told that while they do not call the getHeader methode for Titan for blocks available on multiple and ultimately obtained by a different than Titan relay. They do, however, systematically send signatures to all relays, including Titan, to improve the propagation time. Some examples of such slots that then produce responses from several relays are: 9590392, 9589936, and 9589912 Is it possible that this approach is messing with your methode of collecting the blockspace distribution, listing the blockspace for all of the responding relays?

sssngth 5 months ago

4

Completed

Source vote vs Destination vote vs Head vote accuracy

what's the difference between Src / Dst / Head accuracy? more importantly, how do they each affect the validator reward? I think that - "head accuracy" measures the % of attestations which vote correctly on the previous block, and has significant effect on the validator reward - while Src / Dst are about the sync committee and who's included in it, and doesn't affect the reward the same way if that's the case, I would expect "Correctness" to be much more affect by head accuracy than by src/dst would love to get some concrete explanations on these 🙏

uriklarman 12 months ago

3

Completed

sourceVoteAccuracy calculation from effectiveness not matching rated web data

Hi, i have a issue when calculating the sourceVoteAccuracy we are using the next formula for calculate it : sourceVoteAccuracy = sumCorrectSource / totalUniqueAttestations this shows an slightly difference data from the data shown in rated web whatsmore, we are doing the same formula for targetVoteAccuracy and headVoteAccuracy and those are showing the same exact data both in out calcs and rated web targetVoteAccuracy = sumCorrectTarget / totalUniqueAttestations headVoteAccuracy = sumCorrectHead / totalUniqueAttestations To give more details, i am requesting effectiveness groupeb by timeWindow with day granurality in 7 days date range and then doing averages on day datas to get the weekly data. But as mentioned before this is leading to a non matching value compared to the same validator set in rated website. I also noticed that `sumCorrectSource` is still missing in effectivenes api reference... dont know if that could be the reason as this might be still be in beta mode. Looking forward to your help

trikunai 12 months ago

6

Completed

Updating Ethereum EL mev-boost rewards attribution methodology to capture additional payment patterns between Builders & Proposers

We recently found that there are two payment patterns between builders and proposers related to mev-boost blocks that we weren't tracking. The effect was that we ended up understating the execution layer rewards received by proposers. This affected ~23,000 blocks which represents ~0.6%% of all blocks since the Merge (September 15, 2022). Pattern 1: Builder uses a different address to pay the proposer through an end-of-block transaction. One of the main ways builders pay proposers when proposing mev-boost blocks is through a transfer at the end of the block, which we’ve been tracking, as detailed in our docs. The builder first sets its own address to receive the block’s transaction fees and then uses the same address to pay the proposer. However, we have observed instances where the builder employs a different address to remunerate the proposer in the end-of-block transaction, from the one they used to receive the block’s transaction fees. This pattern was not previously tracked by us. Example: Block 18048751 | Slot 7236061 Problem We missed mev-boost blocks where the builder's address that received the block's transaction fees was not the one that sent the payment at the end of the block. Solution We updated our methodology to remove the strict condition that the sender address of the end-of-block transaction must be the same address that received the transaction fees of the block. Pattern 2: Builder pays the proposer through an end-of-block transaction  initially transferring the amount to an alternate address, which then initiates an internal transaction to send the funds to the proposer. Similarly, there are also cases wherein while the sender of the end of block transaction is the builder, the receiver is a different address (example: a smart contract). This address then makes the payment to the proposer fee recipient through an internal transaction. Example: Block 18901160 | Slot 8095796 Problem We were already tracking internal transactions to proposers before but only if they were also the recipient of the block's transaction fees (i.e. builder pays proposer through a coinbase transfer). Solution We've updated our methodology to also account for internal transactions wherein the proposer's fee recipient was the receiver while the builder was the recipient of the block's transaction fees. Additionally, we are implementing an extra verification step to confirm that if a mev-boost relay identifies a block as a mev-boost block, it is also recorded as such in our database. 🚧 Note: We will apply these changes in production and do a refresh of our validator rewards database from September 2022. All API endpoints and fields that refer to rewards from the Ethereum execution layer, including its aggregations, and annual percentage return (APR) values shall be impacted. Acknowledgements: Rosa Karimi Adl and the Figment team for bringing this to our attention.

Sanjana Mehta 12 months ago

Completed

Code of Conduct for the Rated Forum

Please carefully read and understand the Code of Conduct for the Rated Forum. These rules are applicable to all community spaces under the Rated name, including platforms like Discord. Participation in the Rated Forum indicates your agreement to adhere to these guidelines. Community Expectations In our spaces, we expect all members to demonstrate civility, respect, and understanding. The Rated Forum serves as a collaborative space for exploration and is composed of researchers, validator operators, solo-stakers, ecosystem partners and downstream integrators of Rated data. Respect for All Every individual deserves respect. This principle is fundamental to our community. Code of Conduct Compliance Serious Infractions Certain behaviors represent severe violations and are strictly prohibited: Discrimination against anyone based on geographic, ethnic, sexual, religious, or other identifying characteristics. Public or private harassment, including doxing, disclosing personal information of Rated Forum members, or making false accusations. Use of sexualized language or imagery, and unwelcome sexual attention or advances. Promotion of scams. Extreme Civility Members of the Rated Forum must refrain from: Personal attacks on the opinions, research, or ideas of fellow members. Sending spam messages within the forum; this includes avoiding repeated questions and messages, and staying informed about forum updates. Shilling is prohibited. Rated is intended for builders, developers, researchers, enthusiasts, and users, not for promoting products or services. Displaying aggression or rudeness towards other members. Constructive and well-researched feedback is encouraged, contributing to a welcoming and collaborative environment. Please respect this ethos by not aggressively marketing investment opportunities, or financial products. If in doubt, consult with us at hello@rated.network. Rated Forum Values This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion Please treat this discussion forum with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation. These are not hard and fast rules. They are guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a kind, friendly place for civilized public discourse. Improve the Discussion Help us make this a great place for discussion by always adding something positive to the discussion, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later. One way to improve the discussion is by discovering ones that are already happening. Spend time browsing the topics here before replying or starting your own, and you’ll have a better chance of meeting others who share your interests. The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said. Be Agreeable, Even when You Disagree You may wish to respond by disagreeing. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid: Name-calling Ad hominem attacks Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content Knee-jerk contradiction Instead, provide thoughtful insights that improve the conversation. Your Participation Counts The conversations we have here set the tone for every new arrival. Help us influence the future of this community by choosing to engage in discussions that make this forum an interesting place to be — and avoiding those that do not. Discourse provides tools that enable the community to collectively identify the best (and worst) contributions: bookmarks, likes, flags, replies, edits, watching, muting and so forth. Use these tools to improve your own experience, and everyone else’s, too. Let’s leave our community better than we found it. If You See a Problem, Flag It Moderators have special authority; they are responsible for this forum. But so are you. With your help, moderators can be community facilitators, not just janitors or police. When you see bad behavior, don’t reply. Replying encourages bad behavior by acknowledging it, consumes your energy, and wastes everyone’s time. Just flag it. If enough flags accrue, action will be taken, either automatically or by moderator intervention. In order to maintain our community, moderators reserve the right to remove any content and any user account for any reason at any time. Moderators do not preview new posts; the moderators and site operators take no responsibility for any content posted by the community. Always Be Civil Nothing sabotages a healthy conversation like rudeness: Be civil. Don’t post anything that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech. Keep it clean. Don’t post anything obscene or sexually explicit. Respect each other. Don’t harass or grief anyone, impersonate people, or expose their private information. Respect our forum. Don’t post spam or otherwise vandalize the forum. These are not concrete terms with precise definitions — avoid even the appearance of any of these things. If you’re unsure, ask yourself how you would feel if your post was featured on the front page of a major news site. This is a public forum, and search engines index these discussions. Keep the language, links, and images safe for family and friends. Keep it Tidy Make the effort to put things in the right place, so that we can spend more time discussing and less cleaning up. So: Don’t start a topic in the wrong category; please read the category definitions. Don’t cross-post the same thing in multiple topics. Don’t post no-content replies. Don’t divert a topic by changing it midstream. Don’t sign your posts — every post has your profile information attached to it. Rather than posting “+1” or “Agreed”, use the Like button. Rather than taking an existing topic in a radically different direction, use Reply as a Linked Topic. Post Your Own Stuff You may not post anything digital that belongs to someone else without permission. You may not post descriptions of, links to, or methods for stealing someone’s intellectual property (software, video, audio, images), or for breaking any other law. Process of Change The Code of Conduct is subject to updates and modifications as the Rated Forum evolves and expands. Enforcement Non-compliance with these rules may result in removal from the forum.

Sanjana Mehta 12 months ago

Completed

Welcome to The Rated Forum

Welcome to the Rated Forum! This space is dedicated to proposing and discussing Rated methodologies relating to the data Rated indexes and the methodologies we curate, in an easy to reference way. Everyone is encouraged to join, initiate discussions, and share primarily research and innovative ideas to promote transparency and good standards. We welcome all forms of research, ideas, and contributions. What to do in the forum? Read and discuss about: RAVER and other methodologies Staking Restaking Operators Pools DVTs Slashing conditions Security Implementations New middleware MEV Rollups Oracles Other solutions Is it your first time on the Rated forum? If this is the case, we invite you to consult our Code of Conduct. It includes explanations of the terminology used in this forum, as well as answers to common questions related to our discussions here. Our Values This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion Please treat this discussion forum with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation. These are not hard and fast rules. They are guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a kind, friendly place for civilized public discourse. Improve the Discussion Help us make this a great place for discussion by always adding something positive to the discussion, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later. One way to improve the discussion is by discovering ones that are already happening. Spend time browsing the topics here before replying or starting your own, and you’ll have a better chance of meeting others who share your interests. The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said. Be Agreeable, Even when You Disagree You may wish to respond by disagreeing. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid: Name-calling Ad hominem attacks Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content Knee-jerk contradiction Instead, provide thoughtful insights that improve the conversation. Your Participation Counts The conversations we have here set the tone for every new arrival. Help us influence the future of this community by choosing to engage in discussions that make this forum an interesting place to be — and avoiding those that do not. Discourse provides tools that enable the community to collectively identify the best (and worst) contributions: bookmarks, likes, flags, replies, edits, watching, muting and so forth. Use these tools to improve your own experience, and everyone else’s, too. Let’s leave our community better than we found it. If You See a Problem, Flag It Moderators have special authority; they are responsible for this forum. But so are you. With your help, moderators can be community facilitators, not just janitors or police. When you see bad behavior, don’t reply. Replying encourages bad behavior by acknowledging it, consumes your energy, and wastes everyone’s time. Just flag it. If enough flags accrue, action will be taken, either automatically or by moderator intervention. In order to maintain our community, moderators reserve the right to remove any content and any user account for any reason at any time. Moderators do not preview new posts; the moderators and site operators take no responsibility for any content posted by the community. Always Be Civil Nothing sabotages a healthy conversation like rudeness: Be civil. Don’t post anything that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech. Keep it clean. Don’t post anything obscene or sexually explicit. Respect each other. Don’t harass or grief anyone, impersonate people, or expose their private information. Respect our forum. Don’t post spam or otherwise vandalize the forum. These are not concrete terms with precise definitions — avoid even the appearance of any of these things. If you’re unsure, ask yourself how you would feel if your post was featured on the front page of a major news site. This is a public forum, and search engines index these discussions. Keep the language, links, and images safe for family and friends. Keep it Tidy Make the effort to put things in the right place, so that we can spend more time discussing and less cleaning up. So: Don’t start a topic in the wrong category; please read the category definitions. Don’t cross-post the same thing in multiple topics. Don’t post no-content replies. Don’t divert a topic by changing it midstream. Don’t sign your posts — every post has your profile information attached to it. Rather than posting “+1” or “Agreed”, use the Like button. Rather than taking an existing topic in a radically different direction, use Reply as a Linked Topic. Post Your Own Stuff You may not post anything digital that belongs to someone else without permission. You may not post descriptions of, links to, or methods for stealing someone’s intellectual property (software, video, audio, images), or for breaking any other law. Official links of Rated 🌐 Website: https://rated.network/home 🔎 Explorer: https://rated.network đŸ’ģ Rated APIs: https://rated.network/apis 📝 Documentation: https://docs.rated.network 🗒ī¸ API Docs: https://api-docs.rated.network đŸĻ Twitter: twitter.com/ratedw3b 🎮 Discord: discord.com/invite/GCUfk8ryJS 📰 Forum: https://feedback.rated.network 🔔 Status Page: https://rated.statuspage.io/

Sanjana Mehta 12 months ago