Foundation delegation policy: testnet activity & eligibility

This document sets out how the Safrochain Foundation evaluates testnet validator activity and related conduct when determining eligibility for discretionary Foundation delegation and associated programs. It is published for transparency and operational clarity; criteria may evolve as the network matures. Nothing herein creates a contractual entitlement to stake, rewards, or listing. For inquiries, contact [email protected] or the designated validator channel on Discord.

1. Purpose

The public testnet exists to stress-test protocol behavior, operator tooling, and incident response before mainnet launch. Foundation delegation is a non-binding, discretionary incentive intended to reward reliable participation, accurate self-reporting, and constructive ecosystem contribution. It does not constitute a guarantee of rewards, validator ranking, mainnet inclusion, or any minimum allocation.

2. Activity & availability

Eligible operators are generally expected to demonstrate the following over the relevant review period:

  • Continuous validation on the active Safrochain testnet, with minimal unexplained downtime.
  • Unjailed status for material periods leading up to review windows (jailing may disqualify or defer eligibility depending on severity and resolution).
  • Honest reporting in applications (explorer links, dates, and descriptions must match observable on-chain history).

3. Timeline & continuity expectations

The Foundation may publish review windows (e.g. minimum continuous active operation from a stated calendar date). Operators who join late, incur repeated jailing, or exhibit prolonged signing gaps without adequate explanation may be scored or prioritized differently from operators with stable, well-documented participation. Specific thresholds and dates are communicated per delegation round or public announcement and prevail over general guidance on this page.

4. Governance & ecosystem participation

Where testnet governance proposals are live, thoughtful voting or well-formed proposals may strengthen an application. Governance activity is one input among many: operational discipline, transparent communication when incidents occur, and high-quality feedback to core teams and tooling vendors carry comparable weight in qualitative review.

5. Pre-stake & optional deposits

Optional pre-stake or similar initiatives, when offered, do not constitute the purchase or reservation of delegation rights. Financial terms (including refunds, caps, and timelines) are defined solely in the applicable program documentation. Testnet-only operators may remain eligible under separately announced retroactive or merit-based programs where published.

6. Compliance & conduct

Applicants and validators must observe applicable laws and regulations, the Validator Code of Conduct, the Foundation Charter, and governance materials in force at the time of application. Material misrepresentation of keys, identities, entity status, or on-chain history may result in immediate disqualification and exclusion from future rounds, irrespective of technical performance.

7. Eligibility signals (non-exhaustive)

Eligibility assessment combines structured application data with independently verifiable public signals where available: explorer-derived uptime, signing continuity, governance records, and observable community support. Illustrative positive indicators include:

  • Stable validator operation across the stated testnet period, with transparent notes on any incidents.
  • Timely upgrades during coordinated testnet releases or breaking changes.
  • Clear communication when issues occur (outages, misconfigurations) and documented remediation.
  • Constructive contributions: bug reports, reproducible test cases, documentation, or operator tooling.
  • Alignment with Safrochain values: accessibility, honest marketing, and respect for delegator trust.

The foregoing list is illustrative only. No single factor is dispositive; the Foundation exercises holistic judgment. Satisfying every bullet is neither necessary nor sufficient for delegation.

8. Anti-patterns & risk factors

The following patterns materially increase scrutiny and may result in deferral, reduced allocation, or disqualification, without limitation:

  • Material mismatch between application claims and observable chain history (dates, moniker, valoper, or wallet associations).
  • Repeated jailing without credible explanation, or extended periods off the active set without notice.
  • Sybil-style behavior (multiple validators controlled as one operator presented as independent) when discovered.
  • Harassment, spam, or coordinated manipulation of governance, social channels, or delegator outreach.
  • Security negligence strongly suggested by public evidence (e.g. exposed keys, unsafe practices advertised as recommended).

The Foundation may engage advisors, analytics providers, or chain-indexing partners. Internal assessments may rely on qualitative judgment; adverse findings are not always disclosed publicly.

9. Delegation mechanics (high level)

If delegation is granted, delivery may take the form of liquid staking power, foundation-directed stake, or another mechanism described in the relevant program notice, always subject to on-chain parameters and governance outcomes. Nominal amounts, vesting or lockup schedules, commission expectations, and any clawback or rebalancing rights are defined per program. Ongoing support is ordinarily performance- and conduct-contingent and may be adjusted or withdrawn following mainnet launch if operational or behavioral standards are no longer met.

Optional pre-stake initiatives, when active, are governed exclusively by their standalone terms (refunds, caps, timelines). Unless a program expressly states otherwise, pre-stake does not waive or substitute testnet participation requirements.

10. Privacy, KYC, and jurisdiction

Selected programs may require identity or entity verification, sanctions and watch-list screening, or tax and invoicing documentation. Where collection occurs, the Foundation or an appointed processor will provide a privacy notice describing lawful bases, retention, and data subject rights. Operators resident in restricted jurisdictions, or persons or entities subject to applicable sanctions, may be excluded irrespective of on-chain merit.

11. Appeals & corrections

If you believe a decision rested on demonstrably incorrect public data, you may petition for administrative review by writing to [email protected] with verifiable references (permanent explorer URLs, transaction hashes, UTC timestamps). The Foundation undertakes no obligation to respond within a fixed period or to alter a prior determination.

12. Changes

The Foundation reserves the right to revise this policy, scoring methodology, or supporting tooling at any time. Continued participation following publication of updates constitutes notice thereof. Material amendments will, where reasonably practicable, be announced through official Foundation communication channels.

Last updated: March 2026. This document is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal, tax, or investment advice, nor a binding offer or commitment to delegate.