Secret Network Testnet Committee Charter (Dec - Feb 2025)

Secret Governance
1

This next quarter we continue to reduce the ask, as we’re down to 6 additional validators. This is a sweet spot for upgrades etc.

Many thanks for your support.

Screenshot 2024-12-02 at 20.07.41
Screenshot 2024-12-02 at 20.07.411820×1340 208 KB

The charter and budget

2 Likes
2

Reasons we are voting no

  1. Opaque budget, obfuscates how inflated validator compensation is above expenses.

  2. Inflated compensation for load balancer, unnecessary redundant load balancer.

  3. Testnet halted and none of the compensated parties provided meaningful data to secret labs that would allow them to confirm if the halt was due to a bug in the update or not. Slabs had to guess what the issue was and hope they resolved it.

  4. Users report issues that are rather basic such as cors issues which tells us the API runners depend on users telling them its misconfigured or not working, and they don’t seem to have any alerts that tell them its not working right. (Alerts are standard for expensive APIs in cosmos.)

3

1 & 2: This is well below half the ask when you supported it, and it’s quite clear how many servers are required and what they cost to rent. As I said before, we could have access to the hardware this community paid for, we’d significantly reduce the ask.
3. We provided the all the data we have related to the outage, our nodes were restarting, and the config resulting in it.
Its worth noting this has only ever happened once.
4. This was for GRPC binary, there’s no cosmos monitoring for that, but I’m working on improving the service.

Thanks for the feedback

1 Like
4

All the data you had, because the committee doesn’t collect the required data to troubleshoot issues like this. Secret labs stated

“ Yes, assume

We had almost no additional information during the failure, only that on some nodes memory consumption was gradually increasing and that some nodes failed to produce snapshots, that’s it”

It’s very clear based on other outages that you don’t have proper monitoring.

As for claiming

“ 1 & 2: This is well below half the ask when you supported it, and it’s quite clear how many servers are required and what they cost to rent. As I said before, we could have access to the hardware this community paid for, we’d significantly reduce the ask.”

You guys are charging significantly more than what prior proposals charged for nodes and load balancers. I do not support the clear price gouging, and you know this because you were apart of those other asks…

Given the support committee moved to SNF I think it’s time testnet stop taking advantage of the pool and move to go under snf or slabs next funding round. You run the last group that consistently seeks funding from the pool, and are ignoring the trend.