Solana Foundation Delegation Program - Epoch 911 Rejection Investigation
Based on all available SFDP data and operational knowledge, no clear rejection trigger has been identified. The validator passed all documented eligibility criteria, maintained active testnet operations, and was responsive to SFDP requirements. The generic "rejected" reason requires clarification from the Solana Foundation.
| Epoch | Leader Slots | Blocks Produced | Skipped | Skip Rate | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 911 | 48 | 48 | 0 | 0.00% | ✅ Recovered |
| 910 | 28 | 20 | 8 | 28.57% | ⚠️ High |
| 909 | 44 | 16 | 28 | 63.64% | 🔴 Critical |
| 908 | 44 | 44 | 0 | 0.00% | ✅ Perfect |
| 907 | 48 | 48 | 0 | 0.00% | ✅ Perfect |
As of Epoch 911: 16.98% (36 skipped / 212 leader slots)
SFDP Threshold: < 10.4% (cluster average 0.4% + 10% allowance)
⚠️ Would have recovered to threshold by Epoch 914 if still in program
| Criteria | Flipside Value | Requirement | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commission | 5% | ≤ 5% | ✅ PASS |
| Commission Rugged | FALSE | Must be FALSE | ✅ PASS |
| Software Version | 3.0.14 | ≥ 3.0.12 | ✅ PASS |
| Testnet Performance | 10/10 epochs | ≥ 5/10 epochs | ✅ PASS |
| Infrastructure Concentration | 0% | ≤ 10% | ✅ PASS |
| Total Stake | 37,670 SOL | ≤ 1,000,000 SOL | ✅ PASS |
| External Stake (VINO check) | 10,985 SOL | ≥ 5,000 SOL | ✅ PASS |
| Testnet Operations | Active & Monitored | Active participation | ✅ PASS |
| Responsiveness | Active & Responsive | Within 24 hours | ✅ PASS |
| 5-Epoch Skip Rate | 16.98% | < 10.4% | ❌ FAIL |
The HIGH_SKIP_RATE issue typically only causes demotion from Bonus to Baseline, not full rejection from the program. The validator was already in Baseline state, receiving residual stake. Full rejection for skip rate alone is not consistent with documented SFDP policy.
| Epoch | Data Center | Location | Skip Rate | SFDP State |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 906 | OVH SAS | 🇬🇧 GB | 0% | Bonus |
| 907 | Latitude.sh | 🇺🇸 US | 0% | Bonus |
| 908 | Latitude.sh | 🇺🇸 US | 0% | Bonus |
| 909 | OVH SAS | 🇬🇧 GB | 63.64% | Baseline |
| 910 | OVH SAS | 🇬🇧 GB | 28.57% | Baseline |
The skip rate spike in Epoch 909 coincides with migration back to OVH SAS (GB) from Latitude.sh (US). This strongly suggests the data center migration caused or contributed to the performance issues that led to the HIGH_SKIP_RATE flag.
The rejection reason "rejected" is generic and doesn't specify the exact trigger. Based on available data and operational knowledge:
4 validators were rejected simultaneously with the same generic "rejected" reason, including 3 in perfect "Bonus" standing. This strongly suggests a coordinated manual action or enforcement of a policy not reflected in public documentation.
While HIGH_SKIP_RATE typically only causes demotion to Baseline (not full rejection), it may have been a contributing factor in the Foundation's decision. However, this alone doesn't explain the rejection of 3 other validators with no skip rate issues.
Validators must report metrics for 8 of last 10 epochs on both mainnet AND testnet. A subtle reporting gap could potentially trigger rejection, though this would need verification.
SFDP data shows TESTNET_PERFORMANCE_SCORE = 10/10. Flipside team confirms active monitoring and maintenance of testnet operations. No known testnet issues.
Flipside team confirms they are actively responsive to SFDP requirements and network events. No known responsiveness failures.
Flipside has 10,985 SOL external stake, well above the 5,000 SOL threshold. The VINO policy should NOT apply.
4 validators were rejected in Epoch 911. Notably, 3 of them were in perfect "Bonus" standing with no issues:
| Validator | Previous State | Issues (Epoch 910) | External Stake |
|---|---|---|---|
4uH4G...h6x |
Bonus | None | 157,774 SOL |
ACTGYs... (Flipside) |
Baseline | HIGH_SKIP_RATE | 10,985 SOL |
FLVga...WQJ |
Bonus | None | 4,644 SOL |
KTMkU...5sNM |
Bonus | None | 68,146 SOL |
The fact that 3 validators in perfect "Bonus" standing (with no issues and high external stake) were also rejected with the same generic "rejected" reason strongly indicates this is NOT an automated rejection based on documented criteria. This appears to be either:
Ask directly in #delegation-program channel for the specific rejection reason. The generic "rejected" reason needs clarification, especially given that documented criteria were met.
The Foundation should have sent an email explaining the rejection with specific details.
Reach out to the other 3 validators rejected in the same epoch to compare notes and identify any common factors.
If no clear violation is identified, request a formal review of the rejection decision from the Solana Foundation.
Keep records of all SFDP data, testnet operations, responsiveness history, and communications for potential appeal.
The validator can continue operating and attracting external stake independently. With 10,985 SOL external stake already, the validator has demonstrated community support.
The rejection does not appear to be based on documented SFDP criteria. The simultaneous rejection of 4 validators (including 3 in perfect standing) with a generic "rejected" reason suggests either a manual Foundation decision, enforcement of undocumented policy, or potentially a system error. Direct clarification from the Solana Foundation is essential.