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

#81

Commission

20%

Nominators

200

Stake

155.1K KSM

Updated

2h ago

Performance Metrics (Health: Fair)

Active Set Longevity

366 days

100.0% uptime (366 of 366 observed days)

Current streak: 366 days

Longest streak: 366 days

Commission Stability

87/100

Excellent

Change frequency: 0 per 90 days

Volatility: 2.4%

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

Expected Returns Details

12.0% ↗

Estimated APY (28-day avg)

Current era rate: 11.3%

Trend: improving

Avg era reward: 919 KSM

Avg assigned stake: 13,908 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

0.4 KSM

Total income · 2026-09

● Comm 0.4 ● Self 0.0

Rewards distributed: 2 KSM

vs last month: ↘ -98.3%

Click for full earnings history →

Slot Position Volatility

Low

Avg slot: 73.3 (30 days)

90-day avg: 57.1

180-day avg: 37.5

💰 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: 60.61/100

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 9976 Details

A+

MVR: 0.0% missed

Missed Vote Ratio (para consensus) · last completed era

Nominator Stability Details

69/100

Moderate

Stable nominators: 97

Unstable nominators: 20

Total nominators: 200

Stable percentage: 48.5%

Active Set Risk Details

0/10

Low risk

Largest Nominator Risk:

⚠ 26.0% of stake from one nominator

If they leave: Slot #81 → #131 (still safe)

Risk: LOW

Recent Nominator Changes:

⚠ 55.5% 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 - (60.61/10)

Health Score Breakdown (60.61/100)

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

1. Stability (30 points) 27.38/30

Longevity: 15.0/15 pts
366 days in active set over last 365 days
Commission Stability: 8.7/10 pts
No commission changes (10 pts)
Slot Volatility: 3.7/5 pts
StdDev 26.3 → 3.7 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) 8.19/20

APY Relative Score: 3.2/10 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) 15.0/32

Identity Completeness: 12.0/12 pts
Has on-chain identity: SAXEMBERG/SAXEMBERG 2
Commission Transparency: 0.0/5 pts
No commission changes for 180+ days
Grade Trend: 3.0/5 pts
Grade stable (3 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) 10.92/20

Nominator Stability: 6.9/10 pts
48.5% stable nominators (90+ days)
Single-Point-of-Failure: 4.0/5 pts
Biggest nominator impact: 50 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: 89.49/146

Normalized Health Score: 60.61/100

Risk Score: 4/10

👥 Nominator Stability Analysis

STABILITY SCORE

MODERATE

STABLE (90+ DAYS)

48.5%

UNSTABLE (<90 DAYS)

31%

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

97 nominators

Supporting you for 90+ days

These are your committed, long-term supporters

20 nominators

Supporting you for <90 days

Recent additions - may still be testing validators

48.5% Stable 31% Unstable

Current Risk Level

Moderate Risk: Your nominator base has moderate stability. While 97 nominators have been with you long-term, 20 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

#81

in active set

Safety Buffer

569

slots to edge

Worst-Case Scenario: If Biggest Nominator Leaves

They Control

26.0%

of your stake

→

New Position

#131

▼ 50 slots drop

Impact Assessment:

Still Safe - Would remain well within active set with 569 slot buffer

Recent Nominator Behavior

Stake from Recent Switchers 55.5%

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 26.0%)
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 (60.61/100)

💰 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