5% slashing is enough already no need for 100% slashing especially where there is a mistake on the validators part, i see 100 percent slashing as a scary disaster
100% slashing is not necessary. It leads more problems than benefits.
- It pushes token holders away from staking. Staking the tokens on the chain is getting risk of losing all assets. Then they may prefer not staking and keep trading. It leads the liquidity of the token be too much in the market and the network is not secured enough.
- Validators are afraid of taking that risk on losing all delegators assets. Or it needs a fairly high amount of insurance and disclaimer. This also let only large custodian services and exchanges validate.
- We cannot assume the software is bug free and all mistakes are generated by the validators but the results have to be paid by validators money and reputation. I don’t think we have enough confident validators in early stage.
I do agree on strict and high slashing parameters, but 100% slashing seems too extreme.
Although it is safe that every validator takes responsibility to maintain and secure their nodes, blockchain is different from centralized services because there are many of us maintaining the network and failure or bad intention of one of two participant should not be a critical damage to the network. But to punish these small number with 100% slashing would be an unnecessary action to take.
It will prevent new comers from joining the network as a validator, and also the delegators will feel reluctant from delegating their tokens to any validator.
Also, validators will be reluctant from testing their new setups which they came up with to achieve safety and security. Any minor mistake from testing out a new setup will cause them to lose 100% if things go wrong, even if they do not have intention to attack or damage the network. In the end, this will cause lack of diversity in validator infrastructure setup as well.
I do agree that slashing parameters should be gradually strengthened by observing and investing time in network operation, and also through governance, but even if this change is made gradually, reaching 100% slashing or any number close to 100% will cause the problems above.
A bit late to this conversation, but I agree with some of the others here that 100% slashing is a bit too extreme.
Tezos requires validators put up a bond and only the bond is slashed, not the delegate funds. This approach is the way to go, and perhaps you could take that a step further and make slashing penalties specific to infractions.
There are a lot of ways to go about this, but I would agree 100% slashing is prohibitive to most people just trying to get up and running.
You will exclude a lot of good people with that approach and it will only result in more consolidation of the network to larger organizations and staking pools.