Saas products discussion

wycks commented 8 months ago

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

The Staking as a Service page make no sense and is a disservice to the community.

Describe the solution you'd like

Problem: https://ethereum.org/staking/saas

The expectation is that this page should be both fair and useful , it is neither. On top of that the information is stale.

Etheruem.org is the main gateway to building trust and decision making for Staking and yet this page has:

1. Node Metrics that make no sense

Open Source There is no need for services to be inherintly Open Source, Etheruem is already Open Source.
Bug Bounty Most of these services don;t use any inherent software, what is the the bug bounty for?
Battle Tested How is this metric being updated?
Self Custody This is not a binary question, nor is the information accurate.
Execution and Consesus Diversity We have more meaninglful way to display this than a checkmark.

Current Operators list lacks fairness and a structured procedure

There are well over 65+ validator services, yet this page shows 11. It's actually 10 because 2 of the operators are the same entity.
Node operators asking to be on this page have gotten no reponse on github, some for well over a year.
There is no formal process in place to vet the validators supporting the network.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Solutions:

Delete the Service Providers
Delete the service providers and link to and Open Source Validator Explorer Like Rated
Redesign the page with no Metrics and just link to the 65+ Vaas's which can be easily adjusted via pull requests.
Redesign the page with fresh data that make sense using an API

Additional context

No response

Would you like to work on this issue?

[X] Yes
[ ] No

github-actions[bot] commented 7 months ago

This issue is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity.

wackerow commented 3 months ago

Hey @wycks, appreciate the feedback! Apologies for delay here as the teams been working out of a backlog.

You make valid points overall, and I welcome feedback from others on the above comments.

Listings: Some of the offered solutions seem to center around the nuclear option of just blowing up the page, which I don't think is the best idea. To help guide users, we've always strived for a balance somewhere between not listing any products, and listing every potentially-harmful product that exists. Neither end of that spectrum sounds like good UX to me.
UI: I agree the way these products are displayed could use a refresh. Would welcome input on design, and I'm sure @nloureiro and/or @konopkja could work with you or anyone who could contribute in this area.
Data: With a reliable data feed (such as Rated? Staking.directory?), I'd certainly be amenable to using that data to help paint a better (and more maintainable) picture of the products that we list. In fact, it would be preferred to a large extent as the capacity of our team is limited and it's an ongoing challenge to maintain these listings.

It doesn't make sense to me though to find a single API and just re-display the exact data being obtained and shown elsewhere, such as Rated. Similar to our layer-2 content, we use L2Beat as a guide and minimum bar, but then further curate a list to try and help cater to our specific users.

Encourage the discussion to continue!

wycks commented 3 months ago

Maybe a baby step solution, I can propose some simple changes by removing current stale information, and adding more guidance and education for the user to learn about the different options and characteristics.

I have time to work on this in terms of proposal, design, and even coding, and happy to lend my skills. I also have extensive experience in the staking space (working for/with entities on that list ++ and ETH team). @wackerow What would be best way to move forward?

github-actions[bot] commented 2 months ago

This issue is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity.

ethereum / ethereum-org-website