I found slashing records on Bedrock's validators.
Not on Bedrock. Elsewhere. On other networks. Minor downtime penalties. Missed attestations. Sitting on public ledgers for anyone willing to look.
Let that sink in...
The operators trusted with your uniBTC have been penalized before.
So here's the question Bedrock's campaign doesn't answer. If "curated validators" is a core safety promise, what's the curation standard? What slashing history disqualifies an operator? Where's the line?
Nobody knows. The criteria aren't public.
The violations I found are minor. A few blocks missed. Brief downtime. The kind of thing that happens to almost every validator eventually. Infrastructure isn't perfect.
But that's exactly the point.
If minor slashing is acceptable #Bedrock should say so. Publish the threshold. Define what "curated" means in measurable terms. Uptime minimums. Slashing tolerance. Rejection criteria. Right now, the word "curated" does heavy lifting with almost no documentation behind it.
The Diamond Reserve math works. I proved that. But the reserve is the second line of defense. Operator selection is the first. If that first line has undocumented gaps, the reserve carries weight it wasn't designed to shoulder.
Here's my stance.
Bedrock's architecture deserves trust. But trust requires transparency. Publish operator selection criteria. Disclose slashing histories. Let users see who runs their stake.
"Hiding nothing" isn't the same as "showing everything." @Bedrock is hiding nothing. But they're not showing everything either. In a protocol that markets safety as its edge, that gap matters.
Prevention beats compensation every time.
So I'm asking directly. Should operators with any slashing history be part of a "curated" validator set? Or does curation mean a completely clean record?
Where do you draw the line? Because right now, nobody knows where Bedrock drew theirs.