Sik | crifferent.de/🗻FUJI - Kusama Validator Performance

Sik | crifferent.de/🗻FUJI ✓ Reasonable Poor

Czechia, Prague

Part of the Sik | crifferent.de fleet · 7 validators · See the fleet →

Slot

#285

Commission

15%

Nominators

245

Stake

161.6K KSM

Updated

9h ago

Performance Metrics (Health: Poor)

Active Set Longevity

188 days

51.5% uptime (188 of 365 observed days)

Current streak: 113 days

Longest streak: 113 days

Commission Stability

100/100

Excellent

Change frequency: 0 per 90 days

Volatility: 0.0%

Expected Returns Details

12.7% ↘

Estimated APY (28-day avg)

Current era rate: 20.8%

Trend: declining

Avg era reward: 895 KSM

Avg assigned stake: 12,795 KSM

Avg era point share: 0.14%

Based on 85 eras

Click for trend, ranking, and projection

Validator Self-Stake

111 KSM

Bonded by validator

💰 Validator Earnings Details

13.4 KSM

Total income · 2026-07

● Comm 12.8 ● Self 0.6

Rewards distributed: 86 KSM

vs last month: ↗ +355.5%

Click for full earnings history →

Slot Position Volatility

Medium

Avg slot: 297.6 (30 days)

90-day avg: 344.0

180-day avg: 537.0

💰 Reward Claims Status Details

⚠️ 1 era overdue

Overdue (affects health score)

Total unclaimed: 1/84 eras

Click for timeline and details

Overall Risk (Health-Based) Details

5/10

Moderate

Health Score: 46.98/100

Used in main list "Risk Level" filter

Click for calculation details

Risk Assessment (Flags)

0/10

No risks detected

✓ No risk flags

⚠️ Unpaid Rewards: 1 era overdue

Based on specific warning indicators

Turboflakes Grade era 9794 Details

MVR: 1.41% missed

Missed Vote Ratio (para consensus) · last completed era

Nominator Stability Details

14/100

Unstable

Stable nominators: 6

Unstable nominators: 179

Total nominators: 245

Stable percentage: 2.5%

Active Set Risk Details

0/10

Low risk

Largest Nominator Risk:

⚠ 33.3% of stake from one nominator

If they leave: Slot #285 → #385 (still safe)

Risk: LOW

Recent Nominator Changes:

⚠ 85.5% from recent switchers

Some recent nominator changes

Risk: LOW

Health-Based Risk Calculation

Formula

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

Your validator: 5/10 risk = 10 - (46.98/10)

Health Score Breakdown (46.98/100)

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

1. Stability (30 points) 18.24/30

Longevity: 7.7/15 pts
188 days in active set over last 365 days
Commission Stability: 10.0/10 pts
No commission changes (10 pts)
Slot Volatility: 0.5/5 pts
StdDev 86.3 → 0.7 pts (Moderate volatility)

2. Reliability (33 points) 10.93/33

Era Points Consistency: 0/15 pts
No era points data
Turboflakes Grade: 8.0/10 pts
Grade A = 8.0 pts
MVR: 4.9/5 pts
1.41% parachain votes missed
Payout Status: -2.0 pts penalty
-2.0 pts penalty (1 overdue eras past grace period)

3. Growth (20 points) 8.92/20

APY Relative Score: 3.9/10 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: Sik | crifferent.de/🗻FUJI
Commission Transparency: 5.0/5 pts
No commission changes for 180+ days
Grade Trend: 0.0/5 pts
Grade declined (0 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) 3.47/20

Nominator Stability: 1.5/10 pts
2.5% 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: Czechia
Country Concentration: 2.0/2 pts
Low country concentration (<20%)
Provider Concentration: 2.0/2 pts
Low provider concentration (<15%)

7. Infrastructure (8 points) 3.0/8

Client Version: 0.0/4 pts
Unknown (neutral 2pts)
Location Quality: 3.0/4 pts
Based on Geographic Diversity (location visibility + concentration checks)

Total Points: 67.56/146

Normalized Health Score: 46.98/100

Risk Score: 5/10

👥 Nominator Stability Analysis

STABILITY SCORE

UNSTABLE

STABLE (90+ DAYS)

2.5%

UNSTABLE (<90 DAYS)

179

86%

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

6 nominators

Supporting you for 90+ days

These are your committed, long-term supporters

179 nominators

Supporting you for <90 days

Recent additions - may still be testing validators

2.5% Stable 86% Unstable

Current Risk Level

High Risk: Your nominator base is unstable with frequent turnover. Only 2.5% of nominators have been with you for 90+ days. This puts you at risk of sudden stake losses that could drop you from the active set. Immediate action needed 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
Focus on retention: You have more new nominators than stable ones. Prioritize keeping your current nominators happy

⚠️ Active Set Risk Analysis

Overall Risk

0/10

LOW RISK

Current Position

#285

in active set

Safety Buffer

315

slots to edge

Worst-Case Scenario: If Biggest Nominator Leaves

They Control

33.3%

of your stake

→

New Position

#385

▼ 100 slots drop

Impact Assessment:

Still Safe - Would remain well within active set with 315 slot buffer

Recent Nominator Behavior

Stake from Recent Switchers 85.5%

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 33.3%)
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

Sik | crifferent.de/🗻FUJI ✓ Reasonable Poor Czechia, Prague

Performance Metrics (Health: Poor)

Health-Based Risk Calculation

Formula

Health Score Breakdown (46.98/100)

💰 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