**Server Performance Update and Response**

A major patch was applied overnight. We experienced server I/O saturation issues that led to degraded performance during the last 3-4 eras. The node has now been migrated to a better and more performant environment.

**I want to clarify that our performance rating dropped to B+ solely due to 3 era sessions not running at maximum capacity, with the first inefficiencies discovered on Sunday.**

Regarding the statement: "_This completely goes against the original intention of applying for VBL. What we need are nodes that are more decentralized, more stable, and provide higher returns._" I cannot find specific reference details for this claim. However, Merkletribe has consistently demonstrated diligent work regarding decentralization and stability, which are fundamental requirements for any blockchain network.
 
Concerning "returns," these depend not only on session performance but also on the commission rate set by the validator. We are open to discussing a more favorable commission structure for the community.



![image.png](https://subsquare.infura-ipfs.io/ipfs/QmSgc5nYoEPtDoSdnuoVqaTEpdENzzkJKgw4bwumpq1tLk)


**Important Context:**
I want to emphasize that our node maintains an excellent grade when considering the full 32-era period. The performance issues only emerged in the last 3 days, following years of consistent A/A+ performance ratings.

**Moving Forward:**
We will monitor more closely for any similar performance degradations, which should not occur with our current infrastructure. We would appreciate receiving updates about such situations through our official communication channels, rather than facing proposals for removal from the validator boost list with only 24 hours' notice.



Merkletribe



[@1366...P7qR](1366qiLFSL1PfVK7PhjSxhd4tcPbJnKJW5vhF8KH8DRhP7qR-bifrost-polkadot) 

Thank you for your patient and detailed reply.

I would like to emphasize that my proposal was not submitted on impulse. Prior to raising it, I had already reviewed the performance of VBL nodes and noticed that the Merkletribe/KAZAKI node had shown signs of instability and lower returns even earlier, though I did not keep formal records at that time.

Considering the losses in returns that have already occurred, I would like to propose adjusting the commission rate to 1%. This would align with the commission currently set by the P2P node in the VBL and remain only slightly higher than that of Iceberg Nodes. I would appreciate hearing your perspective on this adjustment.

Moving forward, I will continue to monitor the node’s performance over the next 3–4 days. If the node can maintain stable and efficient performance during this period, I would be willing to reconsider my voting position.

[@13Dv...EFPk](13DvnVn1pPaxxLwrBRE387UYSCa8keAQHm4huFfRw4YyEFPk-bifrost-polkadot)

Thank you for the reply.
Going more in depth with patching: We have completely dismantled the previous cloud machine and migrated the node to a new, fresh, better, and more performant bare metal server. 

Performance should align within the next 24-48 hours.

We consider it a good compromise to lower the rate for this final step of the VBL session from 2.5% to 2%, and we will reconsider the commission structure from scratch for any possible renewal of the VBL.

Unfortunately, 1% is too low to manage the human work required around the node.

Merkletribe

[@1366...P7qR](1366qiLFSL1PfVK7PhjSxhd4tcPbJnKJW5vhF8KH8DRhP7qR-bifrost-polkadot) 

I have re-reviewed the recent node performance, and it is now running stably. I hope you can consider lowering the commission to 2% as previously suggested. I have already removed my earlier “yes” vote, and I currently hold a neutral stance on this proposal.

[@13Dv...EFPk](13DvnVn1pPaxxLwrBRE387UYSCa8keAQHm4huFfRw4YyEFPk-bifrost-polkadot) 

Thank you very much. Hope you liked the fast fixing and response. 
We 100% proceed with commission lowering for that VBL session once we are sure that referenda will be refused. 

We will update here 


There are nodes with worse ratings (even F!)
Why don't you start there?

[@12WG...PTsA](12WGDnt6Xq2Hs6UFVFnoVQdGGy2XNdsG1eVnyC6jHPdYPTsA-bifrost-polkadot)  Who is “F” in VBL?

[@12WG...PTsA](12WGDnt6Xq2Hs6UFVFnoVQdGGy2XNdsG1eVnyC6jHPdYPTsA-bifrost-polkadot) 
I don't know, it's just what your chart says.

Merkle node returned to A grade for info.
I think we can all confirm that the actions made by their team were efficient to return to normal situation.

![Capture d’écran 2025-09-15 à 12.36.13.png](https://subsquare.infura-ipfs.io/ipfs/QmeCnqdx2wRRMv7wKCRciTEcBCAzj3mYmVGDVEF1JHtFf9)

Recently, I found that the Merkletribe/KAZAKI node in vDOT’s VBL has been running rather unstably and ranks very low in the validator rating. You can see the details here:
https://apps.turboflakes.io/#/validator/1EwUAppef3eii8rNEXM44WxVsB6y1apZkfD8ejpwH7d4nmQ?mode=history

![image.png](https://subsquare.infura-ipfs.io/ipfs/QmX3XE4TK7Fy2j8Pybv7ZPeaU1Rtot87bna4DAqgpqbic2)


Currently, Merkletribe/KAZAKI is rated B+, while A and A+ nodes account for 98.17%. This means Merkletribe/KAZAKI is in the bottom 1.83% of recent ratings. This completely goes against the original intention of applying for VBL. What we need are nodes that are more decentralized, more stable, and provide higher returns.

![image.png](https://subsquare.infura-ipfs.io/ipfs/QmbC2Qa1jGPtGDdgpoToxMNW99qn4zmv7FdR4t6KAFwdd6)


Moreover, the recent performance of Merkletribe/KAZAKI has even had some negative impact on vDOT’s yield. Therefore, I suggest removing it from the VBL list.

- Merkletribe/KAZAKI node is running unstably.
- It has a low validator rating of B+.
- Most other validators (98.17%) are rated A or A+.
- This node is in the bottom 1.83% of recent ratings.
- It does not meet the goal of being decentralized and stable.
- It has hurt vDOT's overall yield.
- The suggestion is to remove it from the VBL list.

Proposal: Remove Merkletribe/KAZAKI from vDOT VBL