SAXEMBERG/SAXEMBERG 2 - Kusama Validator Performance

SAXEMBERG/SAXEMBERG 2 ✓ Reasonable Fair

Lithuania, Vilnius

Part of SAXEMBERG cluster - 3 validators · 0.43% of active set · Manage this fleet →

Backed by 5 nomination pools · browse them

Slot

#66

Commission

20%

Nominators

201

Stake

223.4K KSM

Updated

13h ago

Performance Metrics (Health: Fair)

Active Set Longevity

365 days

100.0% uptime (365 of 365 observed days)

Current streak: 365 days

Longest streak: 365 days

Commission Stability

70/100

Moderate

Change frequency: 1 per 90 days

Volatility: 2.0%

Last changed: 2026-04-25 11:10:15

Expected Returns Details

11.4% →

Estimated APY (28-day avg)

Current era rate: 7.1%

Trend: stable

Avg era reward: 895 KSM

Avg assigned stake: 14,222 KSM

Avg era point share: 0.15%

Based on 85 eras

Click for trend, ranking, and projection

Validator Self-Stake

3 KSM

Bonded by validator

💰 Validator Earnings Details

18.1 KSM

Total income · 2026-07

● Comm 18.1 ● Self 0.0

Rewards distributed: 91 KSM

vs last month: ↗ +327.9%

Click for full earnings history →

Slot Position Volatility

Low

Avg slot: 56.3 (30 days)

90-day avg: 28.3

180-day avg: 25.0

💰 Reward Claims Status Details

✅ All rewards claimed

Total unclaimed: 0/84 eras

Click for timeline and details

Overall Risk (Health-Based) Details

4/10

Moderate

Health Score: 58.51/100

Used in main list "Risk Level" filter

Click for calculation details

Risk Assessment (Flags)

0/10

No risks detected

✓ No risk flags

Based on specific warning indicators

Turboflakes Grade era 9794 Details

A+

MVR: 0.0% missed

Missed Vote Ratio (para consensus) · last completed era

Nominator Stability Details

61/100

Moderate

Stable nominators: 111

Unstable nominators: 66

Total nominators: 201

Stable percentage: 55.2%

Active Set Risk Details

0/10

Low risk

Largest Nominator Risk:

⚠ 39.4% of stake from one nominator

If they leave: Slot #66 → #166 (still safe)

Risk: LOW

Recent Nominator Changes:

⚠ 81.5% from recent switchers

Some recent nominator changes

Risk: LOW

Node DHT

Saxemberg2

Parity Polkadot v1.22.2

Network: litep2p

IPv6: -

Multi-homed: -

Source: DHT discovery (telemetry not available)

Health-Based Risk Calculation

Formula

Risk Score (0-10) = 10 - (Health Score / 10)

Your validator: 4/10 risk = 10 - (58.51/10)

Health Score Breakdown (58.51/100)

The health score combines 7 dimensions into a comprehensive performance metric:

1. Stability (30 points) 25.65/30

Longevity: 15.0/15 pts
365 days in active set over last 365 days
Commission Stability: 7.0/10 pts
1 commission changes over 180 days
Slot Volatility: 3.6/5 pts
StdDev 27.1 → 3.6 pts (Low volatility)

2. Reliability (33 points) 15.0/33

Era Points Consistency: 0/15 pts
No era points data
Turboflakes Grade: 10.0/10 pts
Grade A+ = 10.0 pts
MVR: 5.0/5 pts
0.00% parachain votes missed
Payout Status: -0.0 pts penalty
No unclaimed eras

3. Growth (20 points) 7.66/20

APY Relative Score: 2.7/10 pts
Percentile-based APY score relative to active validators
Stake Growth: 5.0/10 pts
Placeholder while stake growth tracking is pending

4. Transparency (32 points) 17.0/32

Identity Completeness: 12.0/12 pts
Has on-chain identity: SAXEMBERG/SAXEMBERG 2
Commission Transparency: 0.0/5 pts
1 commission changes in 180 days (0 pts)
Grade Trend: 5.0/5 pts
Grade improved (5 pts)
Telemetry Visibility: 0.0/5 pts
No public telemetry
Self-Stake Confidence: 0.0/5 pts
Minimal self-stake (<1%)

5. Nominator Quality (20 points) 8.12/20

Nominator Stability: 6.1/10 pts
55.2% stable nominators (90+ days)
Single-Point-of-Failure: 2.0/5 pts
Biggest nominator impact: 100 slots
Aggregate Risk: 0.0/5 pts
Aggregate unstable risk: 150 slots

6. Geographic Diversity (8 points) 6.0/8

Location Transparency: 2.0/2 pts
Known location: Lithuania
Country Concentration: 2.0/2 pts
Low country concentration (<20%)
Provider Concentration: 2.0/2 pts
Low provider concentration (<15%)

7. Infrastructure (8 points) 7.0/8

Client Version: 4.0/4 pts
v1.22.2-c112e83f4f6 = Latest stable (4pts)
Location Quality: 3.0/4 pts
Based on Geographic Diversity (location visibility + concentration checks)

Total Points: 86.43/146

Normalized Health Score: 58.51/100

Risk Score: 4/10

👥 Nominator Stability Analysis

STABILITY SCORE

MODERATE

STABLE (90+ DAYS)

111

55.2%

UNSTABLE (<90 DAYS)

39%

Why Nominator Stability Matters

Direct Impact on Your Position: Unstable nominators are more likely to switch validators, which can cause sudden drops in your backing and potentially push you out of the active set.

Health Score: Contributes 10 points to your overall health score under "Nominator Quality" dimension.

Nominator Tenure Breakdown

111 nominators

Supporting you for 90+ days

These are your committed, long-term supporters

66 nominators

Supporting you for <90 days

Recent additions - may still be testing validators

55.2% Stable 39% Unstable

Current Risk Level

Moderate Risk: Your nominator base has moderate stability. While 111 nominators have been with you long-term, 66 are relatively new (<90 days). Focus on building relationships with your newer nominators to improve retention.

How to Improve Nominator Stability

Build trust through consistency: Maintain high uptime, consistent era points, and stable commission rates
Engage with your community: Active presence on social media, Discord, or Telegram shows nominators you're committed
Demonstrate transparency: Share your infrastructure details, location, and operational practices
Optimize performance metrics: Higher era points and better grades attract quality, long-term nominators
Competitive but stable commission: Avoid frequent commission changes that can scare away nominators

⚠️ Active Set Risk Analysis

Overall Risk

0/10

LOW RISK

Current Position

#66

in active set

Safety Buffer

534

slots to edge

Worst-Case Scenario: If Biggest Nominator Leaves

They Control

39.4%

of your stake

→

New Position

#166

▼ 100 slots drop

Impact Assessment:

Still Safe - Would remain well within active set with 534 slot buffer

Recent Nominator Behavior

Stake from Recent Switchers 81.5%

What This Means:

High Turnover - Large portion of stake from recent switchers. These nominators have shown they're willing to change validators and may leave again

How to Reduce Risk

Diversify your nominator base: Attract more nominators to reduce dependency on your largest backer (currently 39.4%)
Build nominator loyalty: Engage with your community, maintain consistent performance, and communicate openly
Monitor slot position: Keep track of your active set buffer - aim for 200+ slot cushion for safety
Improve performance metrics: Higher era points and better uptime attract stable, long-term nominators
Set competitive commission: Balance rewards to attract nominators without sacrificing your validator income

SAXEMBERG/SAXEMBERG 2 ✓ Reasonable Fair Lithuania, Vilnius

Performance Metrics (Health: Fair)

Health-Based Risk Calculation

Formula

Health Score Breakdown (58.51/100)

💰 Reward Claims Status

Current Status

Last 30 Eras Timeline

Payment Speed

👥 Nominator Stability Analysis

Why Nominator Stability Matters

Nominator Tenure Breakdown

Current Risk Level

How to Improve Nominator Stability

⚠️ Active Set Risk Analysis

Worst-Case Scenario: If Biggest Nominator Leaves

Recent Nominator Behavior

How to Reduce Risk