Update to StarkWare delegation program - call for feedback

🤷‍♀️ All-Purpose Hangout
1

Updates to the StarkWare Delegation Program

TLDR of the proposed change

After two rounds of expanding the reach and attracting more stakers, we are shifting to prioritize quality over quantity. Fewer validators will receive more delegation (up to 31 validators, compared to 130+ before). Validators under the updated plan will typically receive a larger amount (from 5M to 20M STRK, compared to 2M to 5M before), while higher standards of reliability and availability will be expected from them. This is a deliberate shift from breadth toward depth and long-term partnership.

Why we’re making this change

The delegation program exists to bootstrap a healthy, decentralized validator set for Starknet. As the network has evolved, we’ve learned that our current approach isn’t serving that goal as well as it should.

Maintaining a Starknet validator is a serious operation. Teams are expected to test their validators on testnet releases rigorously, stay up to date with protocol upgrades, maintain on-call services, and be highly available to provide feedback to best optimize the Starknet and staking experience, as Starknet progresses towards decentralization.

Previous rounds of the delegation program aimed to give significant delegation when the cost/investment reference was maintaining mainnet validator running. But as validators are expected to do more, it’s pivotal to ensure that the received amounts also better support significant off-chain resources and human-time which we expect serious stakers to allocate.

To the validators who will no longer receive delegation under the new structure: thank you. Your early participation helped get Starknet staking off the ground. This change reflects a shift in strategy, not a reflection on your work, and we hope you’ll stay part of the conversation as the validator set grows in future phases.

The new structure

Who is eligible

The StarkWare delegation program will continue to have two tracks, but their goals and amounts will change.

Route A - Partner delegation

Route A will be composed of up to 26 recipients, who will each be entitled to a significant delegation of at least 15M STRK. This amount will be higher if a candidate qualifies for route A under more than one track, or if the candidate has maintained significant testnet activity to date, and could reach up to 20M STRK.

All Route A participants must demonstrate 99% mainnet liveness over the last three months, and in addition must be one of the following:

  • A top staker. Be one of the top 8 stakers by STRK stake, which are not StarkWare or the Starknet Foundation. Delegations done by StarkWare or the Starknet Foundation will be ignored for the stake ranking here - the logic is to reward serious stakers which attracted a lot of staking from outside StarkWare or the Foundation (8 recipients).
  • A top-tier infrastructure provider. We want to recognize and reward serious infrastructure providers/stakers from other chains that maintain a Starknet staking service. Their involvement is a key factor in reaching out to a larger retail staking audience, and in gaining a healthy perspective on the do’s and don’ts of decentralizing the network. This track will be limited to at most eight participants (in addition to providers entitled through the “top staker” track). Submissions to this track should highlight the other chains the entity operates on (and the total stake it manages there), any audit the company holds (such as SOC 2 Type II), and continued involvement in the Starknet community or efforts made to attract non-StarkWare delegation (if any).
  • An ecosystem contributor. We want to recognize the contribution of ecosystem members to Starknet’s success, and ensure that core builders in the ecosystem have room to contribute to Starknet decentralization. Any app builder on Starknet whose app paid at least $2,000/month in network fees on average over the last three months is automatically eligible for this track. Additional ecosystem members who have made strong contributions to Starknet or its related tech (Stwo, etc.) in the last 6 months may apply and be considered by the StarkWare team. This track will be limited to at most ten participants (in addition to providers entitled through the other tracks). Submissions to this track (if not made by an app builder) should highlight a relevant contribution to the Starknet ecosystem made over the last 6 months.

Route B — symbolic delegation

Route B will be composed of up to 5 recipients, each entitled to a delegation of 5M STRK.

Rationale: The Starknet staking program has attracted a number of enthusiasts who actively participate in decentralization discussions, maintain a Sepolia footprint, and take their staking role seriously.

The criterion for this route is demonstrated 99% liveness over the last three months, on both mainnet and testnet. Applicants should ideally describe why they take interest in Starknet staking, what brought them to participate, and what perspective they can bring going forward.

Ongoing expectations from the third round participants

To retain delegation, they are expected to meet the following:

  • Mainnet uptime above 99%.
  • Sepolia (testnet) uptime of 99%. We recognize that Sepolia’s status has been suboptimal, and that running testnet infrastructure is real work.
  • Active participation in the staking conversations and providing feedback when asked. Teams are expected to give one hour per month (when asked for) for consulting the StarkWare team around best practices done in other decentralized networks, and provide feedback on the Starknet roadmap.
  • Starting staking V3/Decentralized validation is live (currently estimated for early 2027) - have a 24/7 on-call service in case there are production issues which require attention.

What’s next

We are moving forward on a tight timeline. While a change is needed, and soon, the details of the new program are open to feedback.

The intent is for the change in delegation amounts to take effect in five weeks’ time.

Over the next two weeks, we would appreciate any feedback you have on this proposal, as we work to finalize the high-level structure and mindset for the third round.

When the first two weeks end, we will communicate the final round criteria and mindset here, taking all feedback into account.

Once the overall round structure is closed, we will move to identify the selected stakers for the third round. Stakers will then have two weeks to apply and explain why they fit the new criteria.

To apply, please initiate an application request on StarkWare’s site, clearly stating which route you are applying to and why. (The site will be updated once feedback is digested and the details become final)

One week after the submission window closes, StarkWare will withdraw all existing delegations and redistribute them according to Round 3 logic across the chosen stakers.

2

Fully on board with the direction - it’s time to grow and move forward. The shift toward “fewer but more serious” is the right call. Much of the current breadth is decorative: when a large share of the 130+ validators are bots on default configs holding 2M each - not testing releases, not giving feedback, and likely to go down simultaneously at the first serious upgrade - that isn’t 130 independent points of failure, it’s a handful smeared across 130 wallets. Many addresses ≠ real decentralization. 30 real operators with actual uptime and involvement are more robust in substance. So I fully support the cleanup.

That said, narrowing has two flip sides worth flagging.

  1. Concentration within the selected set. The issue isn’t that there’ll be ~30 participants - it’s HOW stake is split among them. 30 independent operators with comparable shares is healthy. But with a gap of 15–20M (Route A) versus 5M (Route B), weight and influence tilt toward the top, and there’s a risk that decentralization ends up resolving to a handful of dominant players. That seems to work against the program’s own goal. I wouldn’t argue for “make everyone equal” - there’s a valid reason to pay serious operators with a heavier load more. But the current A/B ratio is too steep; a smooth scale makes more sense than two far-apart tiers.
  2. Route B viability. I’m not convinced 5M even covers the infrastructure given the stated requirements. Rough math at current numbers (STRK ~$0.03, network APR ~8%, commission ~10%): 5M delegated generates ~400k STRK in rewards per year, of which the validator’s commission is ~40k STRK ≈ ~$100/month. Meanwhile a participant is expected to run two nodes 24/7 (mainnet + Sepolia), give an hour of consulting per month, and maintain 24/7 on-call from 2027. That barely covers servers and doesn’t cover human time.

And there’s a structural bind here: to make 5M pay off, you’d have to raise commission - but high commission drives away external delegators, whose attraction the program states as a goal. So it’s either low commission and running at a loss, or viability at the cost of giving up external stake. For Route A (15-20M) the economics work out (~$300-400/month); for Route B they don’t.

Bottom line: narrowing down to serious operators - yes, absolutely. But it’s worth revisiting (a) the A/B gap, so a new pyramid doesn’t form inside the 30, and (b) the lower threshold, so it actually covers the requirements being placed on participants. Otherwise Route B risks being symbolic in more than just name. Curious what others think.

3

Thanks for this thoughtful response!

  1. Route B viability. I’m not convinced 5M even covers the infrastructure given the stated requirements. Rough math at current numbers (STRK ~$0.03, network APR ~8%, commission ~10%): 5M delegated generates ~400k STRK in rewards per year, of which the validator’s commission is ~40k STRK ≈ ~$100/month. Meanwhile a participant is expected to run two nodes 24/7 (mainnet + Sepolia), give an hour of consulting per month, and maintain 24/7 on-call from 2027. That barely covers servers and doesn’t cover human time.

First of all, the maximum allowed commission with the delegation program would be 15%. (I believe this is already the case today). Secondly, route B indeed largely aims to help with infra costs of few eager individuals that take genuine interest in Starknet staking. (Notice that for core-contributors which are highly interested in Starknet as a whole there is the “ecosystem contributor” track inside routeA). This is also why this route is relatively small in the target number of recipients.

Concentration within the selected set. The issue isn’t that there’ll be ~30 participants - it’s HOW stake is split among them. 30 independent operators with comparable shares is healthy. But with a gap of 15–20M (Route A) versus 5M (Route B), weight and influence tilt toward the top, and there’s a risk that decentralization ends up resolving to a handful of dominant players. That seems to work against the program’s own goal. I wouldn’t argue for “make everyone equal” - there’s a valid reason to pay serious operators with a heavier load more. But the current A/B ratio is too steep; a smooth scale makes more sense than two far-apart tiers.

Notice that route A size is significantly larger than route B also with number of recipients (26 vs 5). So I don’t expect “concenrtation at the top” because most of the recipients will receive the larger amount. Its more “the ones in route B will be significantly behind the rest” situation. The main goal is securing 20+ sequencing partners that are highly committed and have respectable staking amounts - which is already a significant step forward with decentralization compared to today (This suggestion will roughly 3x the amount staked by the 20th staker, looking on today’s data). Do you think this is the wrong metric?